PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] [By Order]

Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [5th July]; further adjourned till Tuesday next.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] [By Order]

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS (WORK DIRECTIONS)

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men are directed to work in mines away from home without accommodation on terms within their means being first arranged for them; and whether he will give instructions that no man should be sent to work in a mine until such provision has been made.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir. I am not aware of any general difficulty of this kind. The instructions are that when men are sent to work away from home arrangements should be made to ensure that satisfactory accommodation is available for them. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind I shall be happy to look into them.

Mr. Silkin: I shall be happy to supply them.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that there are very few of these cases so far as the Bevin boys are concerned and that they are fairly well looked after in the mining areas?

Mr. Bevin: I think they are growing up. They have ceased to be Bevin boys and are now Bevin men.

Mr. Tinker: Is not the position that a man directed to work in the mines is sent to the locality nearest to where he resides?

Mr. Bevin: That is so where there are any vacancies in that district. Preference is given if the vacancies are there, but if they are not I have to send them somewhere else.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Lighting Restrictions

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under existing circumstances, he will consider the advantages of removing the painted areas on railway carriage windows and increasing the lighting on stations and at goods yards, thus reducing the rate of casualties during the coming winter and speeding up the traffic on the railways.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): By agreement with the Departments concerned the standards of lighting in railway carriages, in goods yards and on some railway stations have been substantially increased recently. I do not, however, consider the time has yet arrived when the painted areas on carriage windows can be removed.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reconsider this, in view of the overcrowding in trains, and the difficulty of people being able to read by day, and in view of the well-known fact that this light in trains does not assist the enemy in any way?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly I will reconsider it, because we are always reconsidering these matters. I have quite an open mind. I am, in fact, considering this in a wider aspect to which it is related.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the military authorities, and is it not true that some of them think it would have a very good psychological effect if we lifted the black-out, knowing perfectly well that the Germans will not be coming next winter?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public are not going to regard with equanimity a continuance of the black-out at the same degree of intensity as that imposed last winter?

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but the military authorities have to be consulted, including the Air Staff. I can only assure the House that I am thinking about it very seriously, and the sooner the nasty black-out can go the better I shall like it.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether further consideration may now be given to modifying the existing regulations for reduced lighting on vehicles thus reducing the risk of road accidents.

Mr. H. Morrison: Modifications in the regulations governing vehicle lights have been and will be made whenever possible.

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to make any relaxations in the black-out regulations for the coming winter.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not yet in a position to say what further relaxations in the black-out may be possible next winter, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the possibility of relaxation is never lost sight of.

Mr. Thorne: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the black-out regulations will be done away with between now and Christmas?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend must not tempt me. I am considering this very carefully; it is being most carefully examined. My bias is in favour of relaxation, but I must examine the matter carefully in relation to the actual situation.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend remember that flying bombs have no eyes, and that so far as they are concerned the public will benefit by the lifting of the black-out far more than they will lose?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend is fully right about that. If I am quite sure I have nothing other than flying bombs to consider, I say, "Let there be light."

Mr. Thorne: Are not flying bombs less dangerous than the old bombs?

Voluntary Fireguards (Age Limit)

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why he has issued instructions that no male person under 16 or over 70, or any girl or woman under 18 or over 60, is to be enrolled as a voluntary fireguard, and, if already so enrolled, that the enrolment must be cancelled.

Mr. H. Morrison: The age limits restricting the enrolment of volunteers in the Fire Guard are designed to exclude classes of persons who are generally found to be too young or too old to render effective service. On the other hand, the enrolment of a volunteer need not be cancelled when he (or she) reaches the upper age limit.

Mr. Robertson: Is our man-power position so strong at the present time, that we can afford to treat these patriotic volunteers in this fashion?

Mr. Morrison: It is a matter of the young, to a great extent. It is a controversial point. It was suggested that we ought not to permit too young people to get into needless trouble of this kind. I had to make some sort of compromise decision on this point, and I thought I had done so to the general satisfaction.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED AND DOMINION FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (DESERTERS)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the procedure adopted when persons convicted of crimes in this country and sentenced are also discovered to be deserters from the forces of an Allied country or one of the Dominions, in view of the usual practice in handing over such persons to their own national or Dominion authority, to be dealt with on a military charge; and whether, in cases where terms of imprisonment are imposed, any part of the cost is borne from funds other than the British Treasury.

Mr. H. Morrison: When a person who is a deserter or absentee from the Allied or Dominion Forces is convicted of a criminal offence by a civil court in this country and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he is committed to a civil prison to undergo his sentence and is not handed over to the service authorities until after the expiration of the sentence. The cost of maintenance in prison of a mem-


ber of the Allied or Dominion Forces is borne by the Prison Vote, but this is one of the many services covered by the general financial settlements which have been or are being negotiated with the Governments concerned.

Sir R. Glyn: Does it not mean that if a deserter commits a crime and is sent to prison, he avoids the penalties of being a deserter from the Forces?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, because at the end of his prison sentence he is handed over to the military authorities, who are then competent to deal with him for desertion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMBS

Communiqués

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that the ban on sending communications by Allied and neutral embassies and legations has now been lifted, he is prepared to amplify the communiqués issues by his Department concerning the location and results of bombing by pilotless aircraft.

Mr. H. Morrison: I take it that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is that there is a risk that such information may reach the enemy through diplomatic channels. Whatever that risk may be I do not think that that in itself affords grounds for the official publication of information which we know would be useful to the enemy.

Captain Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to amplify the present type of communiqué, which merely talks about Southern England?

Mr. Morrison: I think if my hon. and gallant friend waits until the Prime Minister makes his statement he may get to know more about that matter.

Casualties and Damage (Publication)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to lessen uneasiness outside Southern England, to stimulate confidence inside it, and to discourage the German people, he will consider the advisability of publishing figures showing the average of casualties caused by each bomb leaving emplacements in France.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the desirability of making fuller regular public reports about the casualties and damages caused by the flying bombs without giving useful information to the enemy; and, if so, can he make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: I will ask my hon. Friends to await the statement on the subject of flying bombs which the Prime Minister will make later.

Mr. G. Strauss: Will there be an opportunity to discuss the statement? Does the Home Secretary appreciate the very great importance of Members in Southern England being able to ventilate the views of their constituents on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until the Prime Minister's statement has been heard. The Leader of the House made some reference to this the other day. I think it would be wiser to wait until then, because it is rather outside my sphere.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can give the House any comparison as to the tonnage of bombs dropped and casualties suffered between the raids of 1940–41 and the present flying bomb atacks.

Mr. H. Morrison: I will consider whether any information on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend can be made available.

Siren Warnings

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the use of the alert in Southern England may mean that operatives cease work during the alarm, and are paid despite this; and if he will initiate a different form of alert, which would free workers for work and avoid this economic loss.

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether as the sounding of the siren for alerts in Southern England interrupts the war effort and business, without serving any useful purpose, he will reconsider the practice in so far as pilotless planes are concerned.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the special arrangements made with industry, the assumption on which my hon. Friends' Questions are based is not well founded.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the alert now given in Southern England is appreciated by large masses of the population outside industry, such as housewives?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as the London population are concerned, they do appreciate the improvement in the siren?

Wing-Commander James: Is it not a fact that since the warnings have been sounded, we have not had the opportunity of seeing the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) in his place?

Mr. Shinwell: I hold no brief, for the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone, but might I ask, on a point of Order, whether an hon. Member is entitled to make insinuations of that sort against another hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Insinuations should not be made. The question was out of Order.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the arrangements for the siren, or the cuckoo warning, in factories in Southern England will be made uniform for all districts, so that we shall not have a siren in one district, and none in another district?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that the trouble with my hon. Friend is that he lives on a border-line. It is, of course, the case that, with people who live near where two warnings are issued, that may happen. If he has any specific case, I will look into it, but at some points it cannot be helped.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a factory in Southern England where the roof spotter makes a commentary, and that there is an absolute minimum of time lost as a consequence?

Mr. Morrison: That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure it would be useful so long as the commentary is related to activity in the air.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are any forms of warning other than the warning by the siren under consideration?

Mr. Morrison: Ideas are always under consideration, and my mind is not closed to any suggestion or idea that comes along. But my own personal view is that, taking it by and large, the warning system is working to the general satisfaction. It is a complicated business, highly controversial. The alarm within the alert, for instance, has been a most valuable thing; and, if I may take the unusual course of saying so, I would like to pay tribute to the officers of my Department, the Royal Observer Corps, and the General Post Office.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, on the occasion of flying-bomb attacks on Southern England, he will order the suspension, until further notice, of public warning by siren between midnight and 7 a.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member may be assured that the officers responsible for issuing warnings take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary disturbance at night.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this point in mind—that, although warnings are very necessary in the daytime, at night, when these raids are fairly frequent, most of the people who go to shelters are there by midnight, anyway, and the rest want to get some sleep?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend was awake all night, he would know that we take account of that. I do not want to say too much, but he may be sure that his point is not overlooked.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the system of public air-raid warnings is suited to the existing conditions; and whether he intends to introduce any changes.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am satisfied that the public air-raid warning system is operating effectively, but my hon. and learned Friend may be assured that I shall not hesitate to introduce any changes which may be necessary.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether a warning may not be given by some system of gunfire?

Mr. Morrison: That suggestion has been made, and is before us. On the other hand, there are considerable sections of public opinion which would be particularly annoyed by gunfire.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (POLICE AUTHORITY MEMBERS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has directed chief constables to ask members of the standing joint committees who hold responsible positions in the Special Constabulary to resign from the Special Constabulary; and whether, in view of the detriment this will cause to the Special Constabulary, he will withdraw this direction.

Mr. H. Morrison: After consideration of the report on the administration of some of the local services in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I informed local authorities that there were, in my view, objections to a member of a local authority serving on the Civil Defence or Emergency Committee, and at the same time occupying a responsible position as a Civil Defence officer. Similar considerations apply to some extent to members of a police authority who hold responsible positions in the Special Constabulary, and I therefore asked police authorities and Chief Constables to review such appointments where they exist and to furnish me with particulars of any cases in which there were thought to be special reasons for continuing such arrangements. I think it is clear that a situation in which a person takes an active part in the management of the police force as a member of the police authority, and at the same time occupies a position of responsibility in the Special Constabulary in which he would be subordinate to the Chief Constable, is anomalous and likely to lead to embarrassment. I recognise, however, that there may be cases in which the immediate application of the principles on which my advice was based would have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the Special Constabulary, and as I have informed Police Authorities and Chief Constables I shall be prepared to consider any such cases on their merits.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Chief Constables are writing now to members of their standing joint committees asking them to resign if they hold any connection with or any responsible position in the Special Constabulary?

Mr. Morrison: There is an alternative. I am only dealing with special constabulary holding responsible positions. I think they should either resign from the Standing Joint Committee or resign their position in the Special Constabulary.

Mr. Turton: Will not the effect of that be to deprive the Standing Joint Committees of men with experience of Special Constabulary duties?

Mr. Morrison: It is really anomalous to place someone in command over some men but subordinate to the Chief Constable, and that he should also be on the Committee to which the Chief Constable is responsible.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Would it not be a very good thing if some members of Standing Joint Committees aged about 90, who only attend about once in five years when 'a chief constable is being appointed, should resign?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will emphasise the proper relationships and responsibilities of justices of the peace by ceasing to use the term "police courts" and referring to magistrates' courts in all future official communications as recommended by the Magistrates' Association.

Mr. H. Morrison: The use of the term "police courts" has been discontinued by my Department for some time past, except when statutory references make it necessary, and I have already given instructions that the term "magistrates' courts" should be used in all official communications whenever possible. The Departmental Committee on Justices' Clerks also recommend that courts of summary jurisdiction should be so described and, in drawing the attention of Justices and Chief Constables to the recommendations of this Committee, I am taking the opportunity of referring specifically to this recommendation.

Sir Percy Harris: Does that apply to London police courts?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS (HOURS)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will hold an inquiry into the need for amending the Shops Act, 1928, to consider whether pre-war hours for shops were unnecessarily long.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on the appeal submitted to him by the Early Closing Association in January last, in which it was urged that the latest closing hour of shops should be seven, instead of eight during the week, and eight, instead of nine on the late night; and if he will consider the desirability of providing facilities to obtain closing orders by local option, at a majority request of traders, at an hour not earlier than six, instead of seven.

Mr. H. Morrison: I fully recognise the desire of my hon. Friends that this question, which affects the interests of the large number of persons employed in shops, should not be overlooked or indefinitely postponed, but I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Mr. Leslie: When the Minister is in a position to do so, will he consider a limitation of the assistants' hours, because early closing is not sufficient, as it does not assure them of getting away when the shop closes?

Mr. Morrison: I will see that that point is considered.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend us to understand that he is making some sort of inquiry into this very important subject?

Mr. Morrison: I did not intend anything. My answer concluded:
I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDERS (RETURN)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether arrangements have been worked out for the return of the population of the Channel Islands after their liberation.

Mr. H. Morrison: Plans have been prepared for dealing with the situation in the Channel Islands when the happy eventuality occurs to which my hon. Friend refers. The first and most urgent requirement will be to make the requisite supplies available for our fellow countrymen who remained in the Islands, and to give them the assistance which they may need. Until full information is available as to the conditions which may be found in the Islands, it is not possible to forecast what steps ought to be taken to enable Islanders who are at present in this country to return. The arrangements to be made for this purpose will depend on a number of considerations, on many of which there will have to be consultation with the Island authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Citizenship (Instruction)

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give an assurance that as soon as the Education Bill has become an Act of Parliament, he will issue a Regulation under the authority conferred upon him, providing that the curriculum in all county and auxiliary schools throughout the country shall make provision for the teaching of the primary duty of all citizens to defend their native land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): It is the intention of my right hon. Friend when the Education Bill becomes law to apprise local education authorities and teachers of the need for instruction in the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. Such particular aspects of those duties and responsibilities as are referred to by my hon. Friend cannot adequately be dealt with in regulations which prescribe the minimum conditions for the payment of grant. The precise manner in which the subject can most effectively be imparted to pupils of differing ages and abilities is at present engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a definite assurance has been given by the Government that some such words as those indicated in my Question would be included? Is he also aware that a general statement as to the teaching of citizenship is very different from what


is suggested in my Question as to the duty of all people to defend their native land; and will the House of Commons receive a similar assurance to that given by the Government elsewhere?

Mr. Ede: I would advise my hon. Friend to put that question to my right hon. Friend when the Bill comes back to this House.

Mr. Rhys Davies: If the Minister is giving any instructions to teachers at all to teach children to defend their native land, will he add something to the effect that their native land does not always belong to them?

Viscountess Astor: Is the Minister aware that a certain section of the population do not want even to have boys go into training camps, because it makes them military-minded, and they do not want that to happen again?

Sir W. Davison: Is the Minister aware that this assurance was definitely given elsewhere? Surely the House of Commons is entitled to the same assurance?

Mr. Ede: Surely, the time I have indicated will be the time at which to get it.

Mr. Gallacher: Teach them they own their native land.

Teachers (Recruitment)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make a statement as to the progress which has been made in recruiting future teachers from men and women now serving in the forces and in the arrangements for their training.

Mr. Ede: The arrangements proposed for training men and women from the Forces or from other forms of national service for the teaching profession were described in the Board's Circular 1652, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Information about this scheme has been made available to men and women in the Services, but it is not practicable under present conditions to deal with applications from individuals to take courses of training after the war.

Mr. Harvey: Are facilities being provided for intending teachers from the Services to have books and the necessary correspondence tuition?

Mr. Ede: Education officers of all the Services are ready to advise inquirers as to suitable courses of study or reading. Several correspondence courses for intending teachers are being provided under the Army Education Scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Will the Minister make a special effort to recruit Army physical training instructors, who will be invaluable for fostering the general physical well-being of the rising generation?

Mr. Ede: We have that particular branch of the Service well in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculosis

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether, while realising present-day difficulties, he will inquire into the circumstances which culminated in the death of Mr. Hopper, of 23, Greencourt Road, Petts Wood, Kent, as typical of the present inadequate treatment and accommodation for persons suffering from tuberculosis; and will he send the hon. Member for Chislehurst a copy of the Report.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): Yes, Sir. I am looking into the case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the inability of the Minister to provide accommodation for such cases, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any powers to give any compensation to the wife?

Mr. Willink: My inquiries are not completed, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when they are.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health the percentage figure of increased incidence of tuberculosis since the outbreak of hostilities.

Mr. Willink: The number of new cases of tuberculosis in England and Wales notified in 1943 showed an increase of 18.4 per cent. over 1939, but the number of deaths, which is considered the truest


guide to the incidence of the disease, showed an increase of only 0.1 per cent. over the same period.

Viscountess Astor: Is it true that all the increase of tuberculosis really came about from the mistake the Minister made at the beginning of the war by sending the tuberculosis patients back to their homes?

Mr. Willink: The Noble Lady will not expect me to go into that.

National Health Service (Panel Patients)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Health whether, in case of any shortage of doctors to meet the requirements of a State health insurance scheme applicable to everybody, it is proposed to remove any limit on the number of panel patients registered with a medical man, or to use compulsion to bring in a sufficient quota of doctors.

Mr. Willink: It is not proposed to compel any doctor to take any part in the new service. The question of appropriate limits to the number of patients whose care a doctor should be able to undertake within the service is one which will need to be considered fully with the medical profession when the proper time comes.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not obvious that there will have to be more doctors under this scheme?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, it is not quite obvious; opinions may differ on that point, but I think there is little realisation of the very great increase in the number of doctors over the last 20 years.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that there is compulsion of the lads into the Army and into the pits, we cannot compel doctors to go from a district where there is very little illness into a district where there is very serious illness?

Mr. Willink: I think most of my hon. Friends take a different view of compulsion in war and in peace.

Hospital Nurses (Rest and Protection)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that every possible step has been taken to secure sufficient rest and protection for hospital nurses.

Mr. Willink: So far as I am aware, the arrangements in hospitals for the care and protection of the nurses are generally as satisfactory as possible in present circumstances. If my hon. Friend has any particular places in mind, perhaps he would let me know.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that, when he says "generally," he implies that some are in adverse circumstances, and, in view of the fact that many nurses who are giving valuable services now are suffering from overstrain, will he take particular care to see, where-ever necessary, that the position is dealt with?

Mr. Willink: Certainly. The hon. Member, I know, will be aware that I should not use any phrase except a general phrase regarding protection at the present moment.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will the Minister not agree that the courage and devotion of the nurses at the present time is beyond all possible praise?

Home Nursing Services

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health in what way it is intended to affect the present home nursing services and the voluntary associations responsible for them in the proposed National Health Service.

Mr. Willink: This is a matter which I hope soon to discuss with the voluntary organisations and others concerned.

Hospitals (Soap and Toilet Requisites)

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that within the last few days an urgent appeal has been made in Birmingham on behalf of local hospitals for soap and toilet requisites needed by Service casualties; to what extent such an appeal indicates a measure of unpreparedness to deal with casualties which, according to official statements, are lighter than was expected; and what steps he is taking to remedy this shortage.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that the permits available to hospitals are sufficient to enable them to meet all requirements for soap products, including toilet soap, and that appeals such as those referred to in the Question


are not justified. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has informed me that ample provision has been made for the supply, where necessary, of other toilet requisites for the use of Service patients, whether in military hospitals or in civilian E.M.S. hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLETING ALLOWANCES (CHILDREN)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health the items of costs and services, including the element of profit, on which the billeting allowance of 10s. 6d. for children under five years old is made up.

Mr. Willink: Children under five are not normally evacuated unaccompanied except to friends or relatives under private arrangement, or to residential nurseries. They are not billeted compulsorily upon householders. The billeting allowance is intended to cover the cost of maintenance exclusive of clothing and medical attention. In view of the varying standards that prevail in different homes it is not practicable to itemise the costs in detail.

Sir Irving Albery: Is the Minister aware that this allowance to private individuals for billeting children is very much less than the cost to the Government of children in nursery schools?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPATRIATED CIVILIAN INTERNEES (WELFARE)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the forthcoming repatriation of civilian prisoners of war and internees, many of whom have no friends in this country and some of whom are without funds, he can state what arrangements are being made for their welfare.

Mr. Willink: The amenities provided for repatriated persons at the port of arrival include food and warm clothing, medical attention or hospital treatment for the sick, facilities for sending merges to relatives, advice on National Registration, ration books, etc., free travel facilities home, transport from the quayside to the railway station, reservations on trains, small cash grants to cover incidental expenses

on the journey and temporary accommodation for those who for any reason are unable to continue their journey immediately. British repatriated persons without homes in this country are offered furnished accommodation rent free so long as they are without means. Those in need of financial help are entitled to apply to the Assistance Board.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that his statement will give very great satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Sites

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health if he will include a footnote to Clause 22 of his Ministry's model by-laws dealing with foundations, which would table the safe bearing pressure of various sub-soils such as is included in the regulations for London.

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend's suggestion has already received some consideration and will be borne in mind.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Clause 20 of his model by-laws provides that where the exceptional condition of the site or the exceptional nature of the soil renders the requirement unnecessary, no steps need be taken concerning the prevention of dampness; and, as these conditions are exceptional and the clause is often a cause of disagreement between local authorities and builders, will he revise it and extend the requirement to at least every domestic building in hew by-laws contemplated by his Ministry.

Mr. Willink: The present form of the clause was deliberately framed by the Advisory Committee responsible for preparing the new model. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to justify a change, but my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

Mr. Bossom: Does the Minister not think it desirable to ask for a layer of concrete over all sites, in order to stop damp and fungus coming up under the houses, as has happened in quite a number of places?

Mr. Willink: That is a somewhat different question. This by-law was deliberately framed by my Advisory Committee


on By-laws a short time ago. On hard surface, it is not necessary, as, for example, on rock, and at present I see no ground for altering the by-law.

Mr. Bossom: My right hon. and learned Friend yesterday stated that there was no regulation to compel the prevention of vegetation—and that means fungus—under these houses. As regards rock, I do not know of a single case, and I doubt if the Minister can find a single case, where a private house is built on rock.

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make arrangements for individual local authorities which form part of groups under Circular 14/44, to invite separate tenders for preparing housing sites in their areas, in addition to the tenders, covering larger areas, invited by the group leaders from larger firms, in order to prove whether the larger contractors can tender more economically than the smaller local firms.

Mr. Willink: While there is nothing to prevent local authorities proceeding as my Noble Friend suggests, such a procedure would involve much unnecessary work on the part both of local authorities and the contractors at a time when their staffs and organisations are under considerable strain.

Maternity Cases (Accommodation)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Health if he has now investigated the case of Mrs. R. Howie, wife of Petty Officer W. A. Howie, of the R.N., who had to leave her furnished rooms as she was expecting a baby, although she is engaged upon war work; and what steps he proposes to take to enable her to obtain suitable accommodation.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The Eton rural district council are giving this lady all the assistance in their power in finding suitable accommodation, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is heavy pressure on available accommodation in this locality at the present time, and the council have many cases of great hardship to deal with.

Mr. Granville: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask if he will take steps to see that no more evacuees flow from other

areas into this already scandalously overcrowded district?

Mr. Willink: I am afraid my hon. Friend is asking me to do the impossible at the moment.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Health if he will take over large unused houses in overcrowded areas and equip them as maternity hostels with proper accommodation for the wives of Service men and war workers, in view of the fact that many of them are finding it impossible to obtain suitable lodgings.

Mr. Willink: I have already taken premises for use as ante-natal hostels and emergency maternity homes in various parts of the country. Many are already working to full capacity but it is at present impossible to find staff for any large extension of this service. In present conditions there is a demand for this accommodation from women from Southern England as well as from the special classes referred to by my hon. Friend.

Viscount Suirdale: asked the Minister of Health what are the smallest sites for which bulldozers and other large plant used for aerodrome construction can economically be used for preparing building sites.

Mr. Willink: The decision on any particular site is a matter for the contractor in the light of his experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Bombed Leasehold Properties (Compensation)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the position of leaseholders whose property has been destroyed by enemy action but who have retained their lease in the hope of rebuilding after the war in view of the Government's new proposals for compensating only the ground landlords where such land is refused licence for re-development; and whether he will consider making some apportionment of such compensation in these cases as between the ground landlord and the leaseholder who has continued to pay ground rent.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The Government proposals for the payment of compensation are not confined to owners


of the fee simple, but apply also to owners of leasehold interests.

London

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he intends to set up a regional planning authority for London to include the City and County of London and the areas surrounding London.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend on the 27th January, 1944.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are large schemes of re-development at present under consideration by certain authorities in this district and that these schemes are being proceeded with at the present time without any means of co-ordinating them with the requirements of other places in the area?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, I recently received the Report of Professor Abercrombie on the Greater London Area, and, of course, the appropriate organisation for planning depends upon further consideration of that plan.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the discontent caused by differentiating as regards gratuities to next-of-kin between those killed in action and those killed on active service; and whether he will consider doing away with the said differentiation.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The gratuity to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was first instituted many years ago when death sustained in personal combat with the enemy was considered deserving of more generous compensation than death sustained in other circumstances. Under present-day conditions the gratuity is illogical and its continued payment on the present basis can be justified only on the ground of tradition. Any extension of the basis would create fresh anomalies even more marked than the present, and I regret that I cannot entertain my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Sir Lambert Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that cases have arisen where a widow has received a gratuity and has then been called upon to refund it, because it has been found out subsequently that her husband was killed on active service and not actually killed in action; and does he consider that that is fair to the widow?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not know of such a case, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars I will look into it.

Sir Lambert Ward: I have already put one case before my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman abolish this illogical condition?

Sir W. Womersley: Because I have not the power to do so.

Mr. Sorensen: Why not obtain it?

Mr. Ballenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct? Has he not the power to amend the Royal Warrant which covers these cases, as he has done before in regard to other matters?

Sir W. Womersley: Not without the consent of this House.

Mr. Gallacher: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got it?

Mr. Lees-Jones: asked the Minister of Pensions if, in connection with the granting of a gratuity to the widow of a naval officer killed whilst on active service, he will take steps to have the words Killed in Action interpreted as directly or indirectly killed in action, so that the widow of an officer who is killed whilst his ship is on convoy duty through a collision with a ship in convoy, due to such ship taking evasive action, may be awarded a gratuity.

Sir W. Womersley: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reply today to the hon. and gallant Member for the North-West Division of Kingston-upon-Hull (Sir Lambert Ward).

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Sterling Balances

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the sterling balances standing to the credit of India; what was the position


at the outbreak of the war; and if he is prepared to issue a comprehensive statement showing how these balances have been accumulated.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): As regards the first and second parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) on 13th June. As regards the third part, I am, as I informed the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) on 8th June, keeping the matter under consideration. But the preparation of a comprehensive analysis, suitable for publication, would require a great deal of work both here and in India and would involve considerable difficulties partly of a technical character and partly arising from the confidential character of some of the material concerned.

Captain Gammans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is time that the people of this country realised the extent to which these sterling credits are going to affect our reconstruction here at home?

Mr. Amery: I think that the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly show that.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has observed that the subject of India's sterling balances has been raised in the International Monetary Conference at Bretton Woods; and can he say under whose authority that subject was raised, as we understood that it was strictly confined to international monetary agreement?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, so I understand, but I was not aware that it had been raised, and if my hon. Friend will give me the necessary information, I will look into it.

Food Situation (Commission of Inquiry)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for India whether the terms of reference of the Commission appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the causes of food shortages and epidemics will cover inquiry into the steps which may be taken to improve generally the standard of agriculture and the system of land tenure.

Mr. Amery: The scope of the Famine Inquiry within its terms of reference will be determined by the Commission itself but in so far as the causes of and remedies for last year's food shortage in India are to be found in the sphere of agriculture and land tenure it may be assumed that these questions will be considerd by the Commission.

Mr. Price: Will the State make a point of insisting that this matter is seriously considered, in view of the fact that famine will be recurrent in India unless the land system and the question of agricultural production are seriously tackled?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, but I think my, answer covers that point.

Mr. Price: Not altogether.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission will take into account the effect of the credit balances we were considering a little time ago on the question of famine conditions in India?

Mr. Amery: The terms of reference of the Commission are very wide and cover every aspect of the question.

Mr. Price: In view of the nature of the reply, Sir, I would like with your permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment on some future occasion.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware of the public warning against a recurrence of famine conditions in India issued by 27 influential Indian industrialists and others; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to avoid such a recurrence.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The Government of India and the Provincial Governments have been actively pursuing the measures described in my answer to the hon. Member on the 6th April, and I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the statement recently issued by the Government of India about shipments of food grains to India in the current year as evidence of the determination of His Majesty's Government to give India every possible assistance.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these 27 indus-


trialists have brought any new factors to the notice of his Department or the Government of India?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, not as far as I am aware.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Arising out of the original reply, will my right hon. Friend see that the food which is available does not get into the hands of the moneylenders as it did last year?

Mr. Amery: That is a matter for the local control.

Miss Ward: Has there been any improvement in communications, which presented a very real problem last year?

Mr. Amery: Undoubtedly it was one of the difficulties of the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONOPOLIES AND CARTELS

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and report on the activities and ramifications of monopolies, cartels, trading associations, price-fixing and other quasi-monopolistic organisations and their effect on our war preparations; and what immediate action is to be taken in order that our post-war economic development, trade and production shall not be affected by restraint.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar Question on this subject which he put on 24th February last.

Mr. Smith: Am I to interpret that reply to mean that the Government do not intend to take any real action against the monopolists; and if so, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that that will be the equivalent of a betrayal of democracy, which we are fighting to preserve?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, my hon. Friend is entirely wrong. If he will refer to paragraph 54 of the White Paper on Employment Policy, he will see the clear statement there that the Government intend to take these powers and to take action.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us have no confidence at all in that paragraph in the

White Paper; and can he give an assurance to the House that the Government mean to take action against monopolists, who were responsible for betraying this country before the war?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it proposed to ask Parliament for the necessary powers shortly, while the war is on, and before the next Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PEOPLE (PEACE TERMS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has at any time been given by His Majesty's Government or any of its Allies of the advisability of informing the German people that if the present Nazi Government is displaced and a democratic régime emerged in the Reich in which the Allies could have faith the way would be opened for an approach towards a settlement of the problems that caused the present conflict in Europe on the basis of the principles set forth in the Atlantic Charter; and, if so, with what results.

Mr. Attlee: So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, it has repeatedly been made clear in public statements that we shall fight on until Germany has been forced to capitulate and until Nazism is extirpated. It is for the German people to draw the logical conclusion. If any section of them really wants to see a return to a régime based on respect for international law and for the rights of the individual, they must understand that no one will believe them until they have themselves taken active steps to rid themselves of their present régime. The longer they continue to support and to tolerate their present rulers, the heavier grows their own direct responsibility for the destruction that is being wrought throughout the world, and not least in their own country.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this in all seriousness? Do I take it from his answer that His Majesty's Government and their Allies would not be unwilling to consider an approach for a settlement of this conflict with a democratically minded German Government; and will not His Majesty's Government, with all their vast power and wide experience of diplomacy, take the lead to do something to relieve mankind of its misery?

Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government's position is as I have stated and I suggest that my hon. Friend should consider that even the German people themselves must show some signs first.

Mr. Hynd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will convey to these anti-Nazi Germans the same warnings as have been conveyed to anti-Nazis in occupied countries, that they should not take precipitate action which might prejudice the results of that action?

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have his answer conveyed by wireless to the German people, so that they may be informed about the matter?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is not the suggestion contained in this Question a direct invitation to the German General Staff to perpetrate exactly the same elaborate fraud as they did the last time?

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that, in whatever dealings we have with any democratic elements in Germany, if they exist—[HON. MEMBERS: "If"]—we do not intend to have similar dealings with Goering to those we have had with Badoglio?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand from that answer that the first step the enemy must take is to abolish Socialism and introduce democracy?

Mr. Attlee: Before Germany can abolish Socialism, they must first have it.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government intend, in the near future, to make clear to the German people the kind of treatment they will receive from the Allies when they have overthrown their Nazi elements; and does he not think that such a statement would assist them in doing so and possibly speed the end?

Sir A. Southby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that when they thought it paid them the German people were solidly behind the Nazi regime; and will he further bear in mind that Nazism means National Socialism, and is the best example of complete State control?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that this is a most inopportune time to raise an issue of this kind and that indeed the whole Question and the answer are based on a hypothesis?

Mr. Attlee: I agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Long-term Policy

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government are now in a position to issue a further Report on the general conclusions reached in the long-term agricultural policy.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) on 20th April last.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that reports received are not very comprehensive and that there are wide gaps? Does he not fully realise the urgent necessity of having a concrete, crystallised and comprehensive scheme?

Milk (Output and Consumption)

Colonel Sir George Courthope: asked the Minister of Agriculture what increase has taken place in the output of milk for sale and in liquid milk consumption in England and Wales since before the war.

Mr. Hudson: The quantity of milk sold through the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales during the 12 months ended 30th May last was 1,194 million gallons, compared with 1,086 million gallons in the 12 months ended 30th May, 1939, an increase of 10 per cent. For the same periods, liquid consumption was 1,047 million gallons and 766 million gallons respectively, an increase of nearly 37 per cent.

Sir G. Courthope: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the increase is still continuing?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. The figures for May were another record—135,000,000 gallons compared with 112,000,000 gallons in the corresponding month of 1939.

Sir Herbert Williams: Since the right hon. Gentleman has disclosed full statis-


tics of one agricultural commodity, will he now be in a position to disclose other comprehensive statistics?

Mr. Hudson: I am considering giving comprehensive statistics.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Borrowings (Bank Commission)

Mr. Sloan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much commission has been paid to banks and stockbrokers on sums raised in Ayrshire during Salute the Soldier week.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I regret that the particulars are not available.

Mr. Sloan: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why it is impossible to secure the particulars of those very trivial transactions in the County of Ayr? Will he tell us if it is his intention to secure the figures for us?

Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to go into the matter but it is very complicated, because it is difficult to relate payments made to the actual money raised in a particular area.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of widespread interest? Will he see that Members of Parliament are supplied with the necessary figures, as the question is arousing some interest?

Sir J. Anderson: I would gladly give the figures if I had them.

Mr. Buchanan: Has he not the machinery at hand, if he cares to use it, to secure that information? Will the right hon. gentleman not take steps to have it done?

Sir J. Anderson: I can give the rates of commission payable on particular classes of investments but I cannot do what is asked in the Question, which is to give the total amount paid to banks and stockbrokers on sums raised during a particular week.

Mr. Stokes: Would it not be quite easy for the Chancellor to ask the banks to supply the information?

Mr. Sloan: If I give my right hon. Friend the amount that has been raised in Ayrshire, will he give me the amount of commission paid?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, that is just what I cannot do. I know the amount raised in Ayrshire. I am not trifling with the House; I have not the information.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements for local authorities who invest their sinking funds and other money in Government loans to invest direct through the Treasury or Post Office and so avoid paying commission to banks.

Sir J. Anderson: I should not think it desirable to make special arrangements for subscriptions by local authorities as distinct from other subscriptions to War Loans.

Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable resentment is caused by county councils having to pay commission on investments made to banks and stockbrokers? Can he not evolve a simple scheme whereby the local authorities could make investments direct to the Treasury?

Sir J. Anderson: The commissions represent a payment for services rendered, and I do not see any reason for drawing any distinction between one class of investment and another.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office charges the B.B.C. no less than 10 per cent. commission for collecting the 10s. wireless licence? Will he abolish such an institution?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if asked a Question, provide the necessary figures in order that we may judge of the magnitude of the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I have just said, in reply to previous Questions, that I cannot give figures showing the amount of commission paid.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that no more than one-eighth of 1 per cent. is paid in any circumstances?

Sir J. Anderson: The rate varies in different cases but it is very small.

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not a fact that the local authorities can lend their money to the Government free of interest and so avoid paying commission?

Extra-Statutory Tax Concessions

Commander Galbraith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to any decision he has reached on the question of making available to the public a record of the extra-statutory concessions granted by the Board of Inland Revenue in relation to Income Tax, National Defence contribution and Excess Profits Tax.

Sir J. Anderson: In accordance with the promise I gave my hon. and gallant Friend in the course of the Finance Bill Debates, I have considered this matter very carefully, and, while I believe that the extra-statutory concessions which the Board of Inland Revenue have made under war-time conditions are for the most part widely known to those concerned, either through announcement in this House or through other channels, I appreciate the force of the case for making available some compendious record of them. I have decided, therefore, to arrange for the publication of a White Paper, setting out the various heads of concession, together with a brief indication of their nature and the circumstances in which they are available, which will, I hope, adequately meet the case.

Commander Galbraith: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply?

Estate Duty (Land Valuations)

Mr. Denman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether valuations of land for death duties since March, 1939, have been based on values at that date; and what deductions have been made to eliminate floating value, shown by the Uthwatt Committee to be inappropriate to specific land.

Sir J. Anderson: The valuations of land for Estate Duty purposes have been based on the market value at the date of death, which is the basis prescribed by Section 7 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894.

Pound Sterling (Domestic Value)

Mr. Denman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present domestic value of the pound sterling by comparison with its value in March, 1939.

Sir J. Anderson: Estimates of changes in the domestic purchasing power of the pound over the whole field of personal expenditure on consumption can, obviously, only be very approximate. Figures are, in any case, not available for the month of March, 1939, or the present time. Certain estimates of relative levels of retail prices, excluding specific indirect taxes and increased by subsidies, are given, with qualifications, for the years 1938 to 1943 in Table C of the 1944 White Paper on the National. Income and Expenditure. On the basis of those estimates the domestic purchasing power of the pound in 1943 was about 71 per cent, of that in 1938.

Mr. Denman: Will my right hon. Friend inform the War Damage Commission of this depreciation of money, so that they can exercise the authority given them to recommend a revision of the 1939 standard?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think The War Damage Commission require any information from me on that point.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend's answer take into account the Stabilisation Fund?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that arises.

Mr. Stokes: If the War Damage Commission are to be given this advantage, will the right hon. Gentleman see that all compensation paid to Service men and their relatives under their war arrangements receives equally fair adjustment?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no question of the War Damage Commission receiving any advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of British investments in Brazil; the amount of such investments on which the fixed interest has not been paid in the last 10 years; and the measure of full support given by His Majesty's Government to the holders of such stock to enable them to recover the sums legally due to them.

Sir J. Anderson: It has been estimated that at the end of 1936 the total of nominal capital in British ownership in Brazil


quoted on the Stock Exchange was £160,000,000. No official computation is available of the amount of the investments on which fixed interest has not been paid in full during the last ten years. With regard to the rest of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 21st June by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES)

Mr. Bartle Bull: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider issuing passes or season tickets on the underground or railway to Members of Parliament whose constituencies are only a short distance from London.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): No, Sir. I regret to say that I cannot fall in with my hon. Friend's suggestion. Any general issue of season tickets instead of vouchers would entail a considerable increase in the cost of Members' free travel facilities, and I should not feel able to justify preferential treatment for any particular group of Members.

Mr. Bull: Cannot my right hon. Friend introduce a ticket which could be punched at the time? For a short fare on the underground you have to write out a ticket at the booking office and you would be lynched before you had written it out.

Mr. Assheton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recollect that the original object of this provision was to remedy the inequality of expenses between Members for London constituencies and Members whose constituencies are some distance away.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not time to reconsider this matter entirely? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in most democratic countries where there are similar institutions Members receive free railway warrants to any part of the country, and that the trifling additional amount involved here would not be regarded by the general public as serious?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Members of the House perform a double function? They are Members for their constituency and they are also Members for the whole country, and serve the whole country. Would not

the sensible thing be to get rid of these silly little vouchers and have a complete pass?

Mr. Assheton: That raises quite a different question from that which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that any Member of Parliament can go to the Fees Office and get a packet of vouchers and change them? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes we can. I put in a voucher every morning at my station, and get a ticket for Westminster.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the representations which have been made by hon. Members, arising out of this Question, will the Financial Secretary take the matter up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend has heard the discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — R.A.F. OFFICERS (RETIREMENT)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he can make any statement about the recent circular letter sent to certain Commands stating that a number of officers, aged 49 and over, will shortly be informed that their services are no longer required; and how many months' pay and allowances these officers will be allowed on the termination of their duties to enable them to look for suitable employment;
(2) whether any of the officers aged 49 and over, who are shortly to be removed from the R.A.F. were originally given civil commissions with a guarantee of employment until they were 65 years of age; and what provisions are being made for these officers to share in any grants if made to officers after this war on retirement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 14th June to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) which explained the policy of the Air Ministry in reviewing the position of all officers irrespective of age, in view of the need to maintain the greatest efficiency of the Service and ensure opportunities for


advancement for young and energetic officers. The letter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was a confidential one from the Air Ministry to one particular Command where establishments are likely to be reduced. No circular letter on the subject has been issued to commands generally. The position of officers who held civil appointments with the Royal Air Force before the war will receive consideration and the Air Ministry will, of course, fulfil any obligations which it may have contracted but no officers have at any time been given a guarantee of employment until they reach the age of 65.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there is a strong feeling among officers that they are to be allowed only about a month's pay? Does he realise that they do not consider that that is enough, and will he do something to make them a little more certain of their future?

Captain Balfour: I told my hon. and gallant Friend that the Air Ministry will fulfil any of the obligations. I do not think there are grounds for officers having such misgivings as the hon. Member expresses.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Cannot they be informed that their expenses will be paid if they offer to stand for Parliament?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday, 11th July and Wednesday, 12th July—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday, 13th July—Supply (17th Allotted Day), Committee. The Vote for the Ministry of Fuel and Power will be considered, which will enable a Debate to take place on coal and the work of the Ministry.
Friday, 14th July—;Motion for an Address for the continuance in force of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts.
During the week we hope also to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Herring Industry Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House, first, whether, well in advance of Thursday's Debate on the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the proposed White Paper will be in the hands of Members, and, secondly, whether he appreciates that there is a fairly widespread opinion in the House that it would have been preferable to have had a Debate on the White Paper in advance of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill, so that when that Second Reading Debate did take place it would be put into its proper place in the wider sphere? I would also ask my right hon. Friend whether he will reconsider the Business for next week. According to the proposed time table the necessary Money Resolution, if the Second Reading Debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill takes place, is to be taken the same day. As the Money Resolution is very tightly drawn, and would prohibit any discussion of many of the financial considerations involved during the Committee stage, will my right hon. Friend see whether something cannot be done to draft it in much wider terms?

Mr. Eden: As regards the White Paper on Coal, I hope it will be available to hon. Members to-morrow. As regards next week's Business, my right hon. Friend will understand that the White Paper does not deal with the immediate situation with which the Bill deals and also that we are, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, debarred from a wide discussion on the White Paper, when the Bill itself is available to the House. The Government have considered the position and they wish to proceed with the Bill because they wish the Minister to have an opportunity to give an explanation and an account to the House and to those in the country who are interested in the matter. As regards the Money Resolution, we admit that it is tightly drawn. Perhaps the night hon. Gentleman will approach the Government through the usual channels and we will see whether something can be done to meet the point.

Mr. Greenwood: On the major point of the White Paper, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a new procedure and that hitherto a discussion


on the White Paper has preceded legislation? I think that has been found satisfactory on all sides of the House. Would it not be better even at this stage to have a discussion on the wider topic, so that the whole bearing can be discussed before we come down to the more detailed Measure which covers only a part.

Sir Percy Harris: I should like to support the right hon. Gentleman's plea. There is a great deal of criticism of the form and shape of the Town Planning Bill, not only in the House but amongst local authorities. At a time like this we want, if possible, to avoid unfriendly divisions or too much criticism. If the Leader of the House adopts the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and devotes the two days that he is offering to a discussion of the wider problem later on he may be able to meet the criticisms of local authorities and have an agreed Bill.

Mr. Eden: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is not offering me a practical solution at all. The Bill deals with the immediate situation, a limited but immediate purpose. The White Paper deals with long-term and more distant policy, and there is no parallel, such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, between the position in relation to this matter and the earlier position in respect of employment policy. I really cannot undertake to change the plan at this hour.

Earl Winterton: When does my right hon. Friend propose to make the announcement, customary I believe at this time of the Session, as to the date when the House will adjourn?

Mr. Eden: I should hope I might be able to make it next week. I have not considered it yet.

Mr. Silkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Association of Local Authorities have unanimously asked that there should be discussions about the Town and Country Planning Bill before the Second Reading is taken? In view of the fact that the Bill will have to be operated by the local authorities, and cannot succeed without their good will, would it not be desirable to postpone the Second Reading and to carry on the discussion with the local authorities?

Mr. Eden: I am fully alive to the point that the hon. Member makes but, in the view of the Government, we thought it desirable that the Minister should state the position and the views of the Government on the Second Reading and then, if desirable and necessary, certainly discussions could take place between Second Reading and Committee.

Mr. Silkin: Would it not be possible to have a discussion on the Second Reading without taking a vote?

Mr. Eden: If the Government can get the Second Reading, they are not pressing for a vote.

Sir Herbert Williams: In regard to the Debate on the continuance of the Emergency Powers Act, that Act will have been in operation for five years on 24th August and as during the next twelve months it is not unreasonable to assume that the necessity for full powers will come to an end, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a Motion that the continuance should only apply for six months on this occasion?

Mr. Eden: I cannot do that. I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Home Secretary's statement.

Commander Galbraith: To return to the previous question, will not my right hon. Friend further consider the postponement of the Second Reading of the Bill in view of its highly technical and complicated nature, so as to give hon. Members more adequate time to discuss it?

Mr. Eden: The fact that the Bill is technical and complicated is a good reason why my right hon. Friend should explain it as soon as possible.

Mr. Stokes: Is it the Government's intention to give the House an opportunity to discuss the International Bank before any decision is taken? Will he hear in mind that Mr. Morgenthau has stated that discussions must come to an end by 19th July, and that this House has not yet had any discussion at all upon it?

Mr. Eden: An undertaking has been given that no final commitment will be entered into without the consent of the House. That undertaking will be observed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was understood that


the subject of the International Monetary Agreement was the only one considered at Bretton Woods? As far as can be seen, they are discussing matters of much wider importance. Can we have an assurance that, before there is any agreement between the experts, which may commit us on any matter outside the monetary agreement, the House will have an opportunity to debate it?

Mr. Eden: I think we must distinguish between discussion and commitment. No Government could ever undertake not to enter on the discussion of certain matters. What they can undertake, and have undertaken in this case, is not to enter, on behalf of the Government, into any commitment without reference to the House. I do not think the House can ask for more than that.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the plea that has been made for a postponement of the discussion of the Town and Country Planning Bill on the ground that not only has the House not had time to discuss its far-reaching proposals, but the country has had no time in which to consider and digest it?

Mr. Eden: The Bill is not going to be passed into law to-morrow. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it must take a considerable time. There will be an interval for consideration between Second Reading and Committee.

Mr. Stokes: On the question of the International Bank, the right hon. Gentleman has said the Government have promised that there shall be no commitment without reference to this House but, if representatives of all these nations meet together and come to a conclusion before the House has had any opportunity for discussion, virtually the Government are committed, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well.

Mr. Eden: I am not troubled about that.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be.

Mr. Eden: Discussion can go on between the Governments, but before we make any commitment we will come to the House for authority.

Captain Cobb: To return to the Town and Country Planning Bill, would it not be making a farce of our proceedings to ask the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which it has not had an opportunity of studying?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend and others have been pressing for the Bill for a long time. Since it has been before the House for more than a fortnight, I think the arrangements we are making are quite reasonable.

FLYING BOMB ATTACKS

Prime Minister's Review

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I consider that His Majesty's Government were right in not giving out a great deal of information about the flying bombs until we knew more about them and were able to measure their effect. The newspapers have in an admirable manner helped the Government in this, and I express my thanks to them. The time has come, however, when a fuller account is required and a wider field of discussion should be opened, and in my opinion such a discussion is no longer hampered by the general interest. I would at the same time enjoin upon hon. Members and the public outside to watch their step in anything they say, because a thing which might not strike one as being harmful at all might give some information to the enemy which would be of use to him and a detriment to us. Still, a very wide field of discussion will be open henceforth.
Let me say at the outset that it would be a mistake to under-rate the serious character of this particular form of attack. It has never been under-rated in the secret circles of the Government. On the contrary, up to the present time the views which we formed of the force and extent of the danger were considerably in excess of what has actually happened. The probability of such an attack has, among other things, been under continuous intense study and examination for a long time. During the early months of 1943 we received, through our many and varied Intelligence sources, vague reports that the Germans were developing a new long-range weapon with which they proposed to bombard London. At first our information led us to believe that a rocket weapon would be used. Just over


a year ago the Chiefs of Staff proposed to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), should be charged with the duty of studying1 all the intelligence as it came in and reporting what truth, if any, there was in these reports and advising the Chiefs of State and the War Cabinet as to counter-measures. Long before this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose vigilance has been unceasing, had begun to strengthen the street shelters generally, and he now intensified this work so that these shelters are by no means ill adapted to withstand the blast effects of the bombs at present being used.
The House will realise that the enemy took all possible precautions to conceal his designs from us. Nevertheless, as the result of searching investigations by agents and by reconnaissance, we had by July, 1943, succeeded in locating at Peenemunde, on the Baltic, the main experimental station both for the flying bomb and the long-range rocket. In August last the full strength of Bomber Command was sent out to attack those installations. The raids were costly, on account of the great distances into Germany which had to be flown, but very great damage was done to the enemy and his affairs, and a number of key German scientists, including the head scientist, who were all dwelling together in a so-called Strength-Through-Joy establishment, were killed. This raid delayed by many months the development and bringing into action of both these weapons.
About this time we had also located at Watten, in the Pas de Calais, the first of the large structures which appeared to be connected with the firing of a long-range rocket. This site was very heavily attacked as long ago as September, and has been under continual treatment since by the heaviest weapons carried by the British. and American Air Forces. We also carried out a most thorough air reconnaissance of the whole of North-West France and Belgium. This was an immense task, and not without its cost, but in the result we discovered in October last that in addition to the large structures of the Watten type other structures, in greater numbers, were being erected all along the French coast between Havre and Calais. I meditated at that time

whether I should make a statement to the House in Secret Session on the subject, but on the whole, everything being in such a hypothetical condition, I thought that might cause needless alarm and that we had better proceed step by step till we had greater assurances as to what we could say.
The reconnaissance which we carried out was an immense task, but it yielded very important information. Eventually we found that about 100 of these rather smaller sites all along the French coast between Havre and Calais were being erected, and we concluded that they would be the firing points for a jet-propelled projectile much smaller than the rocket to which our thoughts had first been turned. All these hundred firing points were continuously bombed since last December, and every one of them was destroyed by the Royal Air Force, with the wholehearted assistance of the growing United States air power. If it had not been for our bombing operations in France and Germany, the counter-preparations in which we indulged, the bombardment of London would no doubt have started perhaps six months earlier and on a very much heavier scale. Under the pressure of our counter-measures, the enemy, who felt, among other impulses, the need of having something to boast about and to carry on a war of nerves in order to steady the neutrals and Satellites and assuage his own public opinion, developed a new series of prefabricated structures which could be rapidly assembled and well camouflaged, especially during periods of cloudy weather. It is from those comparatively light and very rapidly erected structures that the present attack is being made.
What is the scale of this attack? The hundred firing sites which were destroyed, assuming that the enemy's production of the missiles was adequate, could have delivered a vastly greater discharge of H.E. on London per day than what we have now. I think it is only just to the British and American -Air Forces to record that diminution in the scale of attack to which we are now exposed by their untiring and relentless efforts. The new series of firing points, like the first, have been heavily and continuously bombed for several months past. As new sites are constructed or existing ones repaired, our bombing attacks are repeated. Every effort is used to destroy the struc-


tures and also to scatter the working parties and to deal with other matters concerned with the smooth running of this system of attack. The total weight of bombs so far dropped on flying bomb and rocket targets in France and Germany, including Peenemunde, has now reached about 50,000 tons, and the number of reconnaissance flights now totals many thousands. The scrutiny and interpretation of the tens of thousands of air photographs obtained for this purpose have alone been a stupendous task discharged by the Air Reconnaissance and Photographic Interpretation Unit of the R.A.F.
These efforts have been exacting to both sides, friend and foe. Quite a considerable proportion of our flying power has been diverted for months past from other forms of offensive activity. The Germans, for their part, have sacrificed a great deal of manufacturing strength which would have increased their fighter and bomber forces working in conjunction with their hard-pressed armies on every front. It has yet to be decided who has suffered and will suffer the most in the process. There has, in fact, been in progress for a year past an unseen battle into which great resources have been poured by both sides. This invisible battle has now flashed into the open, and we shall be able, and indeed obliged, to watch its progress at fairly close quarters.
To the blood-curdling threats which German propaganda has been making in order to keep up the spirit of their people and of their Satellites, there have been added the most absurd claims about the results of the first use of the secret weapon. I minimise nothing, I assure the House, but I think it right to correct those absurdities by giving some actual facts and figures, knowledge of which, although they may not be known to the enemy, will do him very little good, in my opinion and in the opinion of my advisers. Between too and 150 flying bombs, each weighing about one ton, are being discharged daily, and have been so discharged for the last fortnight or so from the firing points in France. Considering the modest weight and small penetration power of these bombs, the damage they have done by blast effect has been extensive. It cannot at all be compared with the terrific destruction by fire and high explosives with which we

have been assaulting Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and scores of other German cities and other war manufacturing points in Germany.
This form of attack is, no doubt, of a trying character, a worrisome character, because of its being spread out throughout the whole of the 24 hours, but people have just got to get used to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Everyone must go about his duty and his business, whatever it may be—every man or woman—and then, when the long day is done, they should seek the safest shelter that they can find and forget their cares in well-earned sleep. We must neither under-rate nor exaggerate. In all up to six a.m. to-day, about 2,750 flying bombs have been discharged from the launching stations along the French coast. A very large proportion of these have either failed to cross the Channel or have been shot down and destroyed by various methods, including the great deployment of batteries, aircraft and balloons which has been very rapidly placed in position. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Improvising"] Well, batteries move to any position in which they are required and take up their positions rapidly, but once on the site great improvements can be made in the electrical connections and so forth; and the Air Force, confronted with the somewhat novel problem of chasing a projectile, have found new methods every day.
Therefore, I say, a very large proportion of those that were discharged from the other side has been shot down and destroyed by various methods. Sometimes shooting them down means that they explode upon the ground. Therefore the places where they should be shot down are better chosen where successful hits do not necessarily mean explosions in a built-up area. I am very careful to be vague about areas. The weather, however, during the month of June has been very unfavourable to us for every purpose. In Normandy it has robbed us in great part of the use of our immense superiority. These battles in Normandy are being waged without that extraordinary and overwhelming, exceptional aid of the vast Air Force we had collected for the purpose. When the weather improves a new great reinforcement will come into play. In Britain the bad weather has made more difficult the work and combination of the batteries and aircraft. It has also reduced the blows we


strike at every favourable opportunity at the launching stations or suspicious points on the other side of the Channel.
Nevertheless, the House will, I think, be favourably surprised to learn that the total number of flying bombs launched from the enemy's stations have killed almost exactly one person per bomb. That is a very remarkable fact, and it has kept pace roughly week by week. Actually the latest figures are 2,754 flying bombs launched and 2,752 fatal casualties sustained. They are the figures up to six o'clock this morning. Well, I am bound to say I was surprised when, some time ago, I perceived this wonderful figure. This number of dead will be somewhat increased by people who die of their injuries in hospital. Besides these them has been a substantially larger number of injured, and many minor injuries have been caused by splinters of glass. A special warning of this danger was issued by the Ministries of Home Security and Health, and in giving wide publicity to the recommendations for reducing this risk the newspapers have also rendered a most useful service.
As this battle—for such it is—may be a somewhat lengthy affair, I do not propose to withhold the number of casualties. I will give the number because I believe the exaggerated rumours and claims that are made are more harmful than the disclosure of the facts. I will now give the casualties up to date and, thereafter, they will be given in the usual form, at monthly intervals, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security. The total number of injured detained in hospital is about 8,000. This does not include minor injuries treated at first-aid posts and out-patients' departments of hospitals not needing to be detained at the hospital even for a single day. Of those detained in hospital a large proportion has, in fact, been discharged after a few days. Here let me say that the casualty and first-aid services of Greater London are working excellently. This machine has been well tested in the past, and it has been continually reviewed, kept up to date and improved in the light of experience. It is not at all strained beyond its capacity and, naturally, we draw from other parts of the country which are not affected to strengthen the central machine.
So far as hospital accommodation is concerned, we prepared for so many more

casualties in the Battle of Normandy than have actually occurred so far that we have, for the present, a considerable immediate emergency reserve in which to disperse patients. The injured are speedily transferred to hospitals in safer districts, and I am glad to say that penicillin, which up to now has had to be restricted to military uses, will be available for the treatment of all flying bomb casualties. Here, I must say a word about our American friends and Allies in London, from the highest official to the ordinary soldier whom one meets, who have, in every way, made common cause with us and been forthcoming as helpers, wardens and assistants of every kind. No one can visit a bombed site where an explosion has recently taken place without seeing how very quickly they are, in many numbers, on the scene and running any risk to give a helping hand to anyone in distress. And the same is true of the great headquarters under General Eisenhower, where they are conducting this great battle and where, apart from that, every conceivable assistance is given to our Forces and aid services. It will be another tie, I think, between our two peoples to see something of what we go through in London and to take a generous part in facing this burden. A very high proportion of these casualties I have mentioned—somewhere around 10,000—not always severe or mortal, have fallen upon London, which presents to the enemy—now I have mentioned it the phrase "Southern England" passes out of currency—a target 18 miles wide by, I believe, over 20 miles deep, and it is, therefore, the unique target of the world for the use of a weapon of such gross inaccuracy.
The flying bomb, Mr. Speaker, is a weapon literally and essentially indiscriminate in its nature, purpose and effect. The introduction by the Germans of such a weapon obviously raises some grave questions upon which I do not propose to trench to-day.
Slight repairs to buildings are being done as quickly as possible. As a temporary measure these are usually rough protective repairs to roofs and windows. A large force of building workers is engaged on this work. Copious reinforcements have been brought in, and are being brought in, from the provinces by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and are arriving here daily.


Repairs to a very large number of houses have already been carried out, but there are areas where the blast damage is at present somewhat ahead of our growing repair forces. This will be remedied as time goes on.
As to evacuation, as I have said, everyone must remain at his post and discharge his daily duty. This House would be affronted if any suggestion were made to it that it should change its location from London. Here we began the war, and here we will see it ended. We are not, however, discouraging people who have no essential work to do from leaving London at their own expense if they feel inclined to do so by the arrangements they make. In fact, they assist our affairs by taking such action at their own expense. We do not need more people in London than are required for business purposes of peace and war. For people of small means, who are not engaged in war work and wish to leave, registers have been opened and arrangements will be made for their transfer as speedily as possible to safer areas. Children are already being sent——

Mr. Bellenger: At Government expense?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. Children are already being sent at their parents' wish out of the danger areas, which are by no means exclusively confined to the Metropolis. There is, of course, the bomb highway over which the robots all pass before reaching that point of Southern England which I have ventured to particularise this morning. Children are being sent if their parents wish out of the danger areas and, in all cases, mothers with small children, or pregnant women, will be given full facilities by the State. And we do not propose to separate the mother from the child except by her wish, but a terrible thing happened last time. Mothers were separated from children of two or three years of age, and, after a period, when they had saved up money and got time to go down and see them, the children hardly knew them. I hope now with our growing strength, reserves and facilities for removal, we shall be able to say to a mother with three or four children, "If you wish to leave, it is perfectly possible. Arrangement will be made to take you into the country with your children. If you wish them to go by themselves and

you wish to stay here with your husband, or because of your jab, then arrangements can be made that way too." We do not consider that the scale of attack under which we lie at present justifies Governmental compulsion in' any case. In order to speed these arrangements, my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport, Lord Leathers, has arranged that the railways should provide a larger service of trains from the London stations.
All these matters, Sir, and many others are reviewed daily, or almost daily, certainly whenever necessary, by the Civil Defence Committee over which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security has so long presided. He has presided over it since those dark days when he took over the care of London, especially, which he knew so well, in the old original blitz. Upon this Committee sit either the heads or the representatives of every single Department concerned, and the War Cabinet is always available to confirm any decision which involves high policy. There is no delay. Matters are settled with very great speed, but a very great power is given to this Committee, and the question about what I may call the social side of the flying bomb, the social reactions, should be addressed either to my right hon. Friend, who will answer them himself, or to the Minister of Health, who has a great sphere of responsibility.

Mr. Bellenger: Can questions be asked?

The Prime Minister: A good many questions can be asked, but the House, I am sure, would wish to have a check-up on them beforehand, because a perfectly innocent and proper question might have some connection which would tell the enemy more than we need tell him. After all, the Germans keep large Intelligence services, always prying about and trying to find out everything they can, and really we ought to leave them something to do. I can see lots of questions that could well be discussed here, and if there were some particular kind of question we wanted to talk over among ourselves such procedure is always available to the House. I am not going to attempt to parade to the House the many difficult questions that have been settled. I have mentioned a good many of them. I could give a complete list, and if I have left


anything out, that is a matter that can be reserved for a future day. We can with confidence leave our civil organisation to do their work under the watchful supervision of the House of Commons. We have had many periods in the war in which the Government have relied on the House of Commons to keep them in close touch with the people and the population affected and from whom we have welcomed helpful suggestions. I think that we can have great confidence in our civil organisation, for they have immense experience and have handled machinery which has stood far greater strains than this.
On the operational side, a Special Committee has been set up to review, concert and advise upon all counter-measures, both offensive and defensive, to deal with the flying bomb. This Committee consists of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply as Chairman; Air Marshal Hill, who is in charge of A.D.G.B.; General Pile, who has been our highly competent Commander-in-Chief of the Ack-Ack Command since the beginning of the war; the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff; and a representative of the Deputy Allied Commander, Air Marshal Tedder. This Committee have at their disposal a great number of able scientists and engineers who are studying from the technical standpoint the improvement of our counter-measures. The Committee report to me personally, to the Chiefs of Staff, and, finally, to the War Cabinet. There is an organisation for getting quick decisions from all the authorities concerned.
The House will ask, What of the future? Is this attack going to get worse, or is it going to be beat like the magnetic mine, or beat like the attempted destruction of Britain by the aeroplane, or beat like the U-boat campaign was beat? Will new developments, on the other hand, of a far more formidable character come upon us? Will the rocket bomb come? Will improved explosives come? Will greater ranges, faster speeds and larger war-heads come upon us? I can give no guarantee that any of these evils will be entirely prevented before the time comes, as come it will, when the soil from which these attacks are launched will be finally liberated from the enemy's grip. In the meanwhile I can only say that when I visited

various scenes of bomb explosions on Saturday, only one man of many hundreds whom I saw asked a question. The question was, "What are you going to do about it?" I replied, "Everything in human power, and we have never failed yet." He seemed contented with the reply. That is the only promise I can make.
I must, however, make it perfectly plain—I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point—that we shall not allow the battle operations in Normandy or the attacks we are making against special targets in Germany to suffer. They come first, and we must fit in our own domestic arrangements in the general scheme of war operations. There can be no question of allowing the slightest weakening of the battle in order to diminish in scale injuries which, though they may inflict grievous suffering on many people and change to some extent the normal, regular life and industry of London, will never stand between the British nation and their duty in the van of a victorious and avenging world. It may be a comfort to some to feel that they are sharing in no small degree the perils of our soldiers overseas and that the blows which fall on them diminish those which in other forms would have smitten our fighting men and their Allies. But I am sure of one thing, that London will never be conquered and will never fail and that her renown, triumphing over every ordeal, will long shine among men.

Mr. Ballenger: My right hon. Friend will understand that none of us wish to exaggerate the position, but there are many features in connection with this attack on London affecting the lives of the people, their welfare and safety about which we should like to put questions to the appropriate Ministers. We are not, however, desirous of putting those questions in public, for some of them may give comfort to the enemy. May I ask my right hon. Friend what facilities he proposes whereby Members of Parliament can bring these points to the attention of those Ministers and, if necessary, receive their assurances, without giving information to the enemy?

The Prime Minister: I would venture to make a suggestion on the spur of the moment. That is, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security


should depute someone to whom Members could refer, and, if they did not get satisfaction in that way, they could take such other measures as are open. I feel that there will be questions, small questions, but in some cases very painful questions, and I am anxious that the House shall keep in close touch with the Government in this affair, which we are all in together, as in so many others. But it seems to me that it would be a good thing if my right hon. Friend deputed someone 'who was a member of his Committee who could see Members who were anxious about this matter. I did something like this myself 25 years ago during demobilisation after the last war, and it gave great satisfaction. At that time questions amounted to several hundreds a day. If there is any better way of doing it, I will talk it over with my right hon. Friend, and he will make some statement to the House.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability at an early date of having a Debate in secret, for this reason? Many of us have suggestions to make which it would be improper to make in public. I have no faith in having an office to which you can go. We know how dilatory that process it. It is not the Minister of Home Security to whom we want to talk; we want to talk to some of the people in charge of the operations. Everyone knows the effect of a Debate in this House, whether in public or in secret. Things are then done which are never done through the usual channels. I therefore strongly urge that on an early day next week we should have a Debate in secret, not in order that Ministers can tell us things, but in order that we can tell Ministers things which should not be said in public.

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to answer that question. It belongs to the Leader of the House. On the general question of policy, it is much better that there should be no secret Debate, which would give a sort of idea that I have not been frank with the House. I have been brutally frank. Sometime next week, if my right hon. Friend can find the time for it, it might be very useful to hear both matters which require remedy and ideas which may be put into practice.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary asked the Prime Minister to say something about the opening

of the deep shelters? They would be of use to a number of people who are homeless.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I overlooked that in my speech. We always regarded these deep shelters as a reserve, and it has now been decided to make use of them. The Home Secretary is much to be congratulated in having these up his sleeve, and we must make use of them in the manner which is most effective to our general plans, not merely as places where particular individuals can camp out indefinitely, but as part of the general movement and life of London.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend see that due attention is paid to the aged and infirm in regard to evacuation and that all the emphasis is not laid on the children? The most necessitous cases are old age pensioners and cripples living alone.

The Prime Minister: The case of the old and infirm must be considered and will be considered. This is one of the first matters to which my right hon. Friend will give his attention, but I think the children are the first consideration.

Sir P. Harris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises that his full and frank statement will be very much appreciated by the people of London, who are quite prepared to face the dangers of this new threat and who want to be taken into his confidence as much as possible? May I ask him to stick to his original suggestion and avoid as much as possible secrecy or mystery? The fewer Secret Sessions we have and the less secrecy there is, the more the people of London will stand up to this new danger.

The Prime Minister: On the question of deep shelters, I ought to have said that it will take a few days to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. G. Strauss: May I press on the Government the desirability of having a public Debate on this matter as soon as possible? There are millions of people involved in this business, and they are standing up to it remarkably well, and I would like to express the view very strongly that it would help the situation very much if the views, doubts, and criticisms which they naturally have could be expressed in this House publicly by their public representatives. That in


itself would give some satisfaction. There are many points one would like to raise which cannot be raised by question and answer which are of deep interest to these people. There are too many points in the Prime Minister's statement which could be elucidated. I suggest therefore that it is desirable to have a public Debate at the earliest possible moment.

The Prime Minister: That might easily do something which the hon. Gentleman would be the last to wish. Something might be said which might help the enemy. Every word is read and eagerly scanned in order to try to make up a case. A Debate in public very often consists of criticism, quite naturally, because those who are satisfied remain silent. I am not sure that we need unduly stress the troubles we have to face and mean to conquer, by a public Debate during which at any moment it might be necessary for the Minister to say that we ought to go into Secret Session.
It would be better to do what has been promised, that is, have a discussion without the enemy listening. I know a good deal about all this business. I have very good advisers who check, I can assure hon. Members, what I say, so that I do not inadvertently let something out unnecessarily; but hon. Members have not the same opportunity. A perfectly well-meaning speech might be resented by the troops when it gets around and make them say: "Well, they have said this in the House of Commons." We must be careful, and therefore I should not recommend a full public Debate.

Sir William Davison: There is just one matter to which I think the Prime Minister has not referred. Judging by my own correspondence and that of several of my hon. Friends, the point that is emphasised is, "Is it not time that the Government made a public statement with regard to reprisals?" [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not saying that it is right, or anything about it, but only that that was the nature of my correspondence. It is suggested that the flying bomb is an illegal form of warfare, being contrary to international law, and my correspondents ask whether we ought not to say that if it is continued we shall take such steps as are necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not saying that I agree with that, but I am saying what dozens of these letters

say. They ask the Government to state what their view is.

The Prime Minister: I have said deliberately that that is a subject which raises grave considerations and upon which I do not intend to embark. That, I am sure, is the best way in which to leave it. Might I appeal to the House not to pursue unduly these interrogatories to-day? I weighed my words very carefully, and I would like them to represent what it is we have to put before the House and the people.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. In view of the Prime Minister's most excellent statement and of the real danger that we may get into if these questions and answers go on; in view also of the mere fact that certain Members have risen to ask questions that may well help the enemy, because that will give the localities away, should we not now go into Secret Session? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not to-day."]

Mrs. Adamson: In view of the great many urgent problems agitating our people, particularly those who have been blitzed and are suffering hardships, might I ask whether it is not possible to go into Secret Session to-day in order that we might get a move on and ventilate some of our grievances?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it would not be advisable.

Mr. Guy: In order to give many of our hard pressed workers an opportunity of a night's rest during the week-end, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider raising the travel ban in certain areas in Eastern England?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which might well be considered. I have said that extra trains will be provided.

Mr. Naylor: The Prime Minister has already stated that provision is being made for mothers of young children to be evacuated; might I ask him whether he is aware that mothers of the older children are not provided for although in many cases they are willing to go with the older children and want to go? Some of them have made application for accommodation in reception areas, and in a large number of cases accommodation has been refused. Is it not time that compulsion was brought to bear upon householders in reception areas to take these mothers?

The Prime Minister: That would be a very proper question to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. Might I suggest that it would be a pity for us to make too much of this?

Captain Duncan: Might I raise two small points? Will my right hon. Friend ask the President of the Board of Education to issue some guidance to school authorities with regard to the holding of lessons in schools and the number of children that should be accommodated in the schools? Secondly, will he ask the Minister of Health to revise the evacuation and reception areas in view of the new situation, in which there must be many evacuation areas which could well be reception areas now?

The Prime Minister: Those seem to be subjects which are for my right hon. and learned Friend. A great deal has been done.

Mr. Astor: All London Members have many points that they would like to put to the Government, but they would like to do so in the way most convenient to the Government and in the manner least likely to give any information to the enemy. Might I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House to give us an assurance now that we shall have a chance, in a manner most convenient to him and whether in Secret Session or otherwise, so that we need not continue these questions now but can have an early opportunity? We do not wish to put questions down on the Order Paper and should much prefer some other way.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman, whatever else he does, that he will not go into Secret Session, as that would at once create apprehension and wrong feeling?

Mr. Viant: I should like to have an opportunity of prevailing upon the Prime Minister to release more building labour for temporary repairs. Many people could have remained in their houses had the labour been available to effect the temporary repairs. May I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not really asking a question.

Mr. Viant: I did ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was putting a point of view.

Captain Plugge: Might I ask a question on the scientific aspect? The Prime Minister has just said that the Home Secretary will receive a deputation. What are hon. Members to do who want to put forward scientific suggestions to fight the flying bomb? I wanted to put several Questions on the Order Paper, which were turned down for security reasons. Is it right for hon. Members to approach the Paymaster-General, who is the scientific adviser to the Government?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend was interested in mail deliveries by this flying bomb method; but on that, and on any other point, I would refer him to the Lord President of the Council, who is the head of the Committee. In addition there are the Air Minister and other Ministers who are always at my hon. and gallant Friend's disposal.

Captain Plugge: My question on the use of the flying bomb——

Mr. Speaker: There are so many questions that hon. Members must content themselves with one each.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Could my right hon. Friend help me on one point? Some of these local authorities who have been generously accommodating people from the evacuation areas have been set administrative problems of some importance, affecting different departments; can he assist them by indicating whether he would be prepared to nominate one of his colleagues to whom they could go to deal with the whole problem of accommodation, financial assistance, and so on?

The Prime Minister: The Regional Commissioners who deal with these matters have wide powers, and then there are the Ministers particularly concerned in these matters. There is a number of ways.

Mr. Martin: Can the Prime Minister make it clear that if there is to be no early Debate, the Home Secretary will meet London Members and any other Members who are interested in this matter at an early date?

The Prime Minister: I think it might be a very good idea.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With other Ministers concerned.

The Prime Minister: Yes, with other Ministers concerned. My right hon. Friend is quite willing.

Mr. Norman Bower: Will the evacuation arrangements apply to all those districts which come within the danger area and not merely to districts which have previously been scheduled as evacuation areas?

The Prime Minister: Really, that is one of those matters which can be put on the Paper.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I want to put a question about the effect of glass, and I would ask the Home Secretary to make information available on the subject to wardens. A great deal of confusion exists among many people as to the effect of blast on glass, and whether they have to use the old form of tape or other protective material. The second point is to ask the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary to give instructions to make sure that all the doors of the shelters are open, and particularly of the tube stations.

The Prime Minister: Really, these are not questions for me to answer.

Mr. Granville: They save people's lives. [Interruption.] Apparently that does not matter to some hon. Members.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that other hon. Members do not care about saving people's lives, or that he has any monopoly of human charity—or any marked pre-eminence in human genius.

BILLS REPORTED

WISBECH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report, to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee an Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill to be read the Third time.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to extend the making of contributions under Section One of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938, as respects new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven; to suspend temporarily the holding of local inquiries in respect of certain compulsory purchase orders; to provide for grants and advances to the housing association approved for the purposes of Section two of the aforesaid Act; and to make provision with regard to the superannuation of the employees of the said association, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Westwood and Mr. Chapman; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK AND DAIRIES) BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Delegation of Minister's functions.)

(a) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may by agreement with a local authority being a county council or a local authority within the meaning of the principal Act delegate to the council all or any of his functions under regulations made under this Act.

(b) Where in pursuance of this section functions are delegated to any council, the council shall in discharge of those functions act as agents for the Minister and in accordance with such conditions as he may attach to the delegation.

(c) Any delegation to a council under the foregoing provisions of this Act may be determined by a notice served on the council by the Minister or may be relinquished by a notice served on the Minister by a council so however that any such notice must be served before the first day of October in any year and the determination or relinquishment shall take effect as from the first day of April in the next following year.—[Mr. W. Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time,

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At an earlier stage of this Bill the Minister said one of his difficulties in dealing with this problem was that of the various ways in which local authorities applied the standards which he wished to see laid down. That was given as one of the chief reasons why the administration of this matter should be taken from local authorities and given to a centrally organised staff under the Ministry. The object of this new Clause is to make it possible for the Minister to make use of the organisation of county councils where he considers that their administration in the past and their promise for the future will result in the new regulations and the new standards being carried out satisfactorily The Minister suggested to us that there


had been great differences in the standards applied, that in some districts a high standard was set and in other districts a much lower standard. It seems to me that where the work has been done satisfactorily there is a strong case for still leaving it under the direction of the county or local authority. I have tried in this new Clause to make it clear that the county council would be acting only as agent for the Ministry; they would carry out the Regulations which the Minister lays down and, therefore, one would get the advantages of a central direction with some of the advantages of local control.
It may be said that this will make an inconvenient arrangement, that in some counties the officers will be directly under the Ministry and in others under the county council, and that that is an irregular arrangement. I wonder whether that matters very much. Some of the advantages of the suggestion being made here are that we shall get, not exactly a tribunal, but at least a local committee, watching the administration, and watching the interests of the persons concerned. This new Clause is no substitute for the appeal arrangements which the Minister is suggesting; it is not intended to be a substitute for that. It is dealing primarily with a rather different aspect of the problem, but it does incidentally provide that local people, some of whom would be elected—because I think the dairies committees of county councils have nominated persons as well as persons elected to the county council serving upon them—will be able to watch the administration of this Measure, and will give that local eye to the way it is being carried on which might very likely make it less necessary in many instances for the tribunal to be called in.
I would, therefore, like to make it abundantly clear that while I welcome the proposals the Minister is making for his tribunal I feel there is a case for this plan as well. It is only a permissive Clause. If the Minister found that it was not workable he need not use it, but in the transition period, in the early stages, I suggest it might be very useful. Where there are counties which can carry out this work effectively, where they have already got their staffs and organisations, it might assist the Minister in getting the Bill into working order more quickly than if he had to build up the whole of his organisation

centrally from the very beginning. It is true that the county councils have up to now only been responsible for the special classes of milk—for tuberculin-tested milk—but it seems to me that it would be very much easier for the county councils to expand their organisation to cover all dairies than it will be for him to build up a completely new centralised organisation. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider this.
On the general issue the county councils are afraid that in one way or another many of their powers are being taken away from them. This does give an opportunity, where county councils have done this work well, where they have the staff available, and where they have the organisation, to ask their aid; and it being a permissive Clause, under which there is every opportunity for the Minister to withdraw this system if it is found to be cumbersome, I press it upon him as at any rate a power he might take in this Bill. It will assist him to get this scheme into working order quickly and will meet the widespread feeling that local authorities are having their responsibilities taken from them, and will further safeguard the individual farmer by giving him the local survey of democratically-elected local representatives.

Mr. Horabin: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Lipson: I should like very much to support the new Clause. I do so with the greater pleasure because it is in line with a suggestion I ventured to make on Second Reading. I am quite sure that if the Minister would accept it his action would be very welcome to local authorities. He is very well aware that they are concerned over the proposals to take away powers which they have hitherto exercised. The new Clause does give him an opportunity of retaining their good will, which, of course, he needs not only for the purposes of this Bill but for general administration. There is a precedent for the suggested procedure. The Minister of Transport follows this course with regard to trunk roads. The county councils are his agents in this matter, and in practice it has worked well. There is one further advantage. One danger which the local authorities see in this Bill is that when the Minister proposes to appoint his own officers to do this he will deprive them of some of the members of their


staff whom they badly need, not only for this work but for other work also. If he will use the county councils as his agents these officials will be able to remain in the employ of the local authorities, and it will, therefore, remove the feeling of apprehension which they have on this matter. It seems to me that a Clause of this kind is sound commonsense and it is in the interests of friendly relations between local authorities and the Minister that he should accept it. If he can do so I am sure it will be a very wise step for him to take.

Mr. Price: I hope the Minister will not see his way to accept this new Clause, because much as I appreciate the work which the local authorities have done in matters concerning milk and dairies and the working of the Acts hitherto, I think the time has come when there must be greater uniformity with regard to this whole matter. If the machinery which has hitherto proved to be not altogether satisfactory because it is not uniform is still further perpetuated by this new Clause, as I think it will be, we shall not really get abreast of the problem. The whole purpose of this Bill is to get a uniform system under central control, and I think it would be unwise for the Minister to deflect in any way from the general purpose which he has set forth in this Bill. This is no reflection upon the local authorities, none whatever. They are going to have plenty of work to do in other spheres. They will not have their functions taken away in a great many other spheres, as far as I can see. In view of the fact that milk and dairies are an absolutely fundamental matter from the point of view of public health and the future of agriculture, I hope the Minister will see his way not to accept this new Clause, much as I recognise the good intentions of the mover.

Sir Edward Grigg: I can understand the hon. Member urging uniformity and central control, because he adopts principles foreign to those we adopt on this side of the House.

Mr. Price: The efficiency of agriculture is all I am concerned with.

Sir E. Grigg: The argument for efficiency is, I think, a wrong argument. It is the argument which has been used throughout to establish every totalitarian system. If it holds good for milk why

not apply it to everything else? My hon. Friend's argument will serve to apply central control over the whole range of the nation's activities. That argument can always be used. I quite understand his advocating it, but I only hope he will realise that in advocating it he is leading the country towards totalitarianism, which is what we are determined to resist.
I did not rise to enter into controversy with my hon. Friend, but only very briefly to give my support to this admirable new Clause. After all, it is permissive. I agree that more uniformity—riot rigid uniformity under central control, but more uniformity—is required in regard to standards for milk, but this is a permissive Clause. Under it my right hon. Friend can use local authorities when he thinks they can do the job, and he need not use them when he thinks they would not do the work well. It is of the greatest importance at the present moment to put no slight on local authorities, or to suggest that this House is trying to arrogate to itself powers in regard to local government which in many cases, indeed in most cases, they have admirably discharged. I hope my right hon. Friend will therefore give this Clause his favourable consideration. It is permissive. He is not bound by it. He can take action under it when he thinks it is right to do so, and refuse to take action when he thinks the local authority is not properly effective. It can therefore have no effect whatever in causing any deterioration in the standards of clean milk, and it will undoubtedly give great satisfaction to members of local authorities who are hard working voluntary public servants in all parts of the country, and to whose services to the community we are liable not to give adequate recognition.

Mr. Turton: I should like to add my support for this Clause. I am speaking not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) did, from the point of view of the local authorities, but in the interests of clean milk. The Minister's case throughout the whole of this Bill is that he has to wipe out the local authorities because there are black spots in some parts of England or Wales. That has always seemed to me harsh and unfair to local authorities who have done their duty in the past and have every intention


of continuing to do their duty in future. This is a permissive Clause. It has another advantage. The Minister cannot bring his Bill into operation for a long time unless he adopts some such measure as this. The veterinary officers and the sanitary inspectors are not there. Here is a way of speeding up the effort for clean milk. The Minister could take over the powers of recalcitrant authorities, and leave the powers in the hand of authorities who are doing well. On the last stage of the Bill I mentioned authorities who were inspecting twice or three times a year, and were seeing that the neighbouring towns got clean milk—that was in the neighbourhood of York. Is it right that the Minister should lower the standard, as he will do in the early years, by giving that area fewer inspections than it has had hitherto?
This is a test of whether the Minister is really in earnest about getting clean milk, and of whether he is going to level up the standard, or to level it down. I have a fear, when I read of the National Farmers' Union supporting the Minister in this matter, whether the end will not be less close control over milk production, and a levelling down of the best areas to a less satisfactory position. I am as keen as anyone to get clean milk, but we have seen that, when the Minister has taken over the powers of local authorities, the standard has not gone up, but has gone down. I refer to powers in respect of diseases of animals, for which we had more rigid inspection before the powers were taken over than we have had since. In my own county sheep scab has increased since the Minister took over veterinary inspection. I am prepared to support the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) in the Division Lobby, in order to have this Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths: I apologise for intervening in this Debate. I intervene because of the speech which was made by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). I listen to him on many subjects with great respect, though I often disagree with him. I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that there is no totalitarianism in the attitude of my hon. Friend. The essence of totalitarianism is that there is no Parliament, no public representatives to criticise. It comes ill,

indeed, to charge hon. Members on this side with not being fully aware of the importance of local government. In the last 20 years the party to which I belong has given new life and functions to local government in this country. The time will come when the whole problem of local government will have to be reconsidered. Almost every week, in this House, we add enormous new functions to local government, and in the next in or 20 years those functions will be enormously extended, beyond anything that local government ever had before. The way to weaken local government is to give it functions that it cannot carry on.

Mr. Pickthorn: Or any other form of government.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. We have to be sure that the people of this country are provided with clean milk. To do that, we must get uniform standards, applied uniformly all over the country. Can the existing local government structure secure that end? We have as much care and admiration for local government as anyone, and we are satisfied that the way provided in the Bill, and not the other way, is best. It is not because we are totalitarian. We shall resist any attempt at totalitarianism or at over-centralisation, but we must not give local government powers that it cannot carry on.

Sir E. Grigg: I welcome the statement that my hon. Friend has made in regard to totalitarianism. I hope that he will live up to it in years to come. I am sure that he must admit that, not merely uniform standards, but high uniform standards, are what we want. It is because we believe that the local authorities can assist in making the standards not only uniform, but high, that we support this Clause.

Mr. Griffiths: That is what we want.

Sir William Wayland: I support the Clause. I cannot see how the Minister can refuse it. He has the power in his own hands, and can offer it or not to the local authorities. Surely the local authorities are more anxious to see things properly carried out than is an important official in London. I really hope that the Minister will see that he cannot lose anything by accepting the Clause, and that he will accept it without further demur.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: May I add one word of appeal to the Minister to accept, at any rate, the principle of this new Clause? There is not the least doubt that he, as much as any of us, is anxious to do all that is possible to strengthen and encourage the local authorities to do their work efficiently. Throughout the discussions on this Bill it has appeared to me entirely wrong to take away the powers of local authorities in respect of the production of clean milk because of difficulties which have been experienced in the past in the effective carrying out of those powers. Surely the right way is to strengthen and encourage the local authorities. One of the difficulties has been the absence of a standard, and of compulsory powers to enforce that standard. The right hon. Gentleman has now got into a position where he can issue the necessary standards, and see that they are compulsorily enforced. I am quite sure that, from the point of view of the consumers and the farmers, quite apart from that of the local authorities, a provision of this kind would assist the working of a Bill which I am sure we all want, and would go a long way towards getting clean milk.

Mr. Petherick: I am very much disappointed at the attitude of Members of the Labour Party. On the Second Reading, eight of them spoke strongly against the transference of the powers of the local authorities to the central Government. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), after a volte face between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, is advocating complete uniformity in the hands of Whitehall as regards the administration of this Bill, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of local authorities. I find it difficult to discover why the change of heart has occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) never suggested for one instant that hon. Members of the Labour Party are not in favour of the continuance of local government functions; but, unfortunately, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly did not indicate that they intended to practise, so far as this Bill is concerned, what they are preaching. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has done a real service in drafting this very good Clause, which, so far

I can see, could easily be accepted by the Minister without doing any harm whatever even to his ideas of how the Bill should be carried out if it becomes an Act.
I firmly believe, as I believed when the Bill was first introduced, that it is unwise to transfer functions in respect of milk from the local authorities to the central Government without a very careful inquiry, conducted in peace-time. We registered our protest, and now we are faced with this position. It seems to me that there is no particular reason to foresee that the officers of the central Government will be any more efficient than the servants of the local authorities—certainly those of the best local authorities. They have to be recruited, and I presume that there will be great difficulty in recruitment. But the best local authorities already have sanitary inspectors and veterinary officers in their employment, who are carrying out their tasks, so far as they can, with the handicaps of lack of money and lack of general regulation—and they are doing it well. Therefore, it seems to me that, when this Act becomes fully operative, it will be wise to leave these powers in the hands of those local authorities, at any rate, which are carrying out their tasks in such a way. I believe it would make the Bill work very much better, from the administrative point of view, and it would, at least, allay the alarm of some local authorities concerned, and their annoyance at having their functions taken away when they know that they have been carrying them out as well as they could with the two handicaps I have mentioned. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to agree that this Clause does not, in the least, undermine the principle of the Bill, and to accept it.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I rise to say a word to support the point made by my hon. Friend below me. If the object is to produce clean milk as soon as possible, I think the Clause brought forward is far more efficient than the Bill as it stands, from that point of view. It is perfectly clear that for a very long period of time the Minister cannot possibly have trained inspectors to inspect dairy farms, and I think that, in the meantime, it is desirable that the local authorities should continue to do this important work. It is very important work and that should be emphasised in this House.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am afraid the Government cannot accept this new Clause. I promised, during the course of the Second Reading, that I would look into the question to see if we could do anything towards delegation, but the practical difficulties are, in our view, overwhelming. I have gone a long way to meet the object which the mover professed to have in mind in his speech, when he said that he wanted local authorities in the counties to have a sound general administration under this Bill. My hon. Friend will see that I have an Amendment to Clause 4 to set up this Committee, whose job will be to keep a general eye on it and carry out the precise purpose he has in mind. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) asked if I would accept the Clause in the interests of good relations between central and local government. I suggest to the Committee that we should reject this Clause for that very reason. Nothing could be more disastrous for good relations between central and local government than that I should interfere, and should have mandatory powers to interfere, in their day-to-day activities. It is recognised that certain local authorities have carried out their work very well, but others have not. Conceive the difficulties of a Minister in my position who, having to decide between Authority A and Authority B, might have to say to Authority A: "You have been a good Authority and I delegate my powers to you," and, to Authority B, "You have been a bad Authority and I will not."
Regarding the inspectors, they are the servants of the local authority, and they are responsible to the ratepayers of the local authority and not to me. How am I going to see that they carry out the duties which I consider they should carry out? It would be necessary for me to appoint inspectors over their inspectors to make sure that they are carrying out my views. Imagine the kind of friction that would develop in every locality every day. It is because I have at heart the interest of good relations between central and local authority and because I am sure that this Clause would result in a complete breakdown of the whole scheme, that I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Lipson: Local authorities are already the agents of the Ministry in regard to trunk roads, and the arrangements work extremely well.

Mr. Hudson: That has no relation to this.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of S. 20 of principal Act.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Before the first Amendment on the Paper is moved, can an indication be given what Amendments to this Amendment are going to be called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I think we had better wait until we come to the Amendments to the Amendment. I think it is proposed to call, at any rate, the first Amendment, and we shall see how we stand when we get there.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the beginning to the end of Sub-section (2), and to insert:
(b) for the refusal of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with and the registration should be refused, and for the cancellation of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion the regulations are not being complied with and the registration should be cancelled.
(3) Any regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of the last foregoing Sub-section shall—

(a) require notice to be given to the person affected of any intention to refuse or cancel the registration, stating the grounds on which it is alleged that the regulations cannot be or are not being complied with, as the case may be, and his rights of making objections and representations in accordance with the regulations;
(b) enable the said person, within the time prescribed by the regulations (which shall not he less, in the case of a refusal, than twenty-eight days or, in the case of a cancellation, than twenty-one days, from the date of the service of the said notice), to object, in respect of all or any of the grounds stated in the said notice, that the regulations can be or are being complied with, as the case may be;
(c) provide for the reference of any such objection to a tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations;


(d) provide for the procedure of the said tribunal, and in particular for entitling the person objecting to appear before the tribunal with any witnesses he desires to call, and to require the tribunal to inspect the premises to which the objections relate;
(e) require the said tribunal to determine whether the objections are made out and, if not, on which of the grounds in respect of which they are made they are not made out, and provide that, in the event of a difference of opinion among the members of the tribunal, the determination of the majority of them shall be the determination of the tribunal;
(f) require that the determinations of the the tribunal shall be reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and communicated by him to the person objecting, and provide that the determinations of the tribunal as stated in the report shall, for the purpose of the proposal to refuse or cancel registration, be conclusive evidence of the facts found thereby;
(g) enable the said person within the time so prescribed to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that the registration should not be refused or cancelled on the grounds stated in the notice mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Sub-section;
(h) provide that no registration shall be cancelled—

(i) in any case, until the expiration of the prescribed time for making objections or representations under the regulations;
(ii) in a case where an objection is made within that time, until the report of the tribunal thereon has been received and considered by the said Minister;
(iii) in a case where representations are made to the said Minister within that time, until the representations have been considered by him.

(4) Any premises being immediately before the commencement of this Act a dairy farm, and any person then carrying on the trade of a dairy farmer, shall be deemed to have been registered in accordance with Milk and Dairies Regulations by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the commencement of this Act; and those regulations shall include provision for ascertaining the premises and persons deemed to have been registered as aforesaid and for making consequential adjustments of the register kept by any authority under the said regulations immediately before the commencement of this Act, and may include provision for any matter incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section.
The purpose of this Amendment is to meet certain apprehensions that existed as to the effect of the Clause in its original form and I propose to explain the method that is being adopted to deal with that position. This Amendment seeks to leave to the tribunal which is suggested the

ascertainment of facts, and to separate that from the application of policy, which is essentially a matter for the Minister and the exercise of which no Minister could possibly abdicate. It is really going further than the suggestion in the Report on Ministers' Powers, because we are making here the complete separation and leaving to the tribunal the determination of the facts while the Minister performs the proper executive act of applying those decisions in accordance with the policy which he thinks is for the general benefit of the community. If I may, very shortly, apply this suggestion to the particular circumstances of the Bill, I would say that the Regulations will deal with buildings, equipment and methods, and there will be two main classes of applicant, first of all, the would-be new entrant into this activity, and, secondly, the person who has a licence, where the question of the cancellation of that licence has come up for decision. With regard to the new entrant, the question of fact, as shown in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, is whether, having regard to the conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with. That is the question with regard to the new entrant, and that is a matter which will go to the tribunal and on which the decision of the tribunal will be conclusive and binding. With regard to the person who has got his licence, the question will be whether he has broken the Regulations—a much simpler task—and that will again be a matter for-the tribunal. The procedure will therefore be that notice will be given to the person against whom grounds of complaint are alleged, setting out those grounds. He will then have the right to make objection to them and his objection will be referred to the tribunal. The decision of the tribunal will be by a majority, and they will report their determination to the Minister, who will pass on their determination on the grounds of complaint to the applicant, who has to go before the tribunal. At the same time the applicant, without prejudicing his position before the tribunal, can make any further representations he likes to the Minister, so that every possible angle of the field will be covered. Then the Minister will consider the determination of the tribunal.
If the tribunal decides that none of the grounds of complaint remain valid, that the applicant wins on every point before


him, then the Minister will have nothing further to say; but if, to take an example, the complaints have been with regard to ventilation and water supply, the tribunal might say, "There is nothing in the complaint with regard to ventilation, but we find that there is with regard to the complaint on water supply." Then it will be for the Minister to say, applying the standards which he thinks right for the general benefit of the community, whether the water supply alone is a proper and sufficient matter in order to refuse or cancel the licence. That is the way it works, and I submit to the House that that is a proper and logical division of functions between the tribunal on facts and the Executive, which must preserve the general standard.
I am only dealing with the matter at this length because of the interest which it aroused among many of my hon. Friends on the last occasion, and, if I may, I will take points which were at issue, and show how we have dealt with them. There was objection to the old wording "will not be," which it was said was too wide, and, therefore, we have crystallised that question by substituting the words, "cannot … having regard to the conditions existing at the premises." The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) wanted an extension of the days which would be allowed for the appeal. The Amendment introduces, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, 28 days in the case of a refusal and 21 days in the case of a cancellation. The existence, jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal are now set out in the Bill, as was desired by many of my hon. Friends.
I now come to the question of the composition of the tribunal. The House will observe that its composition is left to be dealt with by the Regulations. That, I think, is a proper way of dealing with it, because we must maintain flexibility and we must provide for the fact that bodies that would be useful to-day may not be there or may be in a different form to-morrow. Therefore, I ask the House to leave that matter to the Regulations. I do not want to appear to be sidestepping a point which did cause some heart-searching in the House. My right hon. Friend suggested, as the form of the tribunal, that it would

have one member chosen from a panel appointed in consultation with the National Farmers' Union, another member from a panel chosen in consultation with the Milk Marketing Board, while the third would be the Superintendent Veterinary Inspector. My right hon. Friend and I like that form of tribunal, and we would like the House to be fully seized of the reasons. In the first case, it is an expert tribunal, as opposed to one which has no qualifications in the subject matter. I have considered very carefully, in view of what has been said, the rival claims of non-expert and expert tribunals. I just give two expert tribunals which are in my mind and which I have found very satisfactory—those of the Report of the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Official Arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act. There are two admirable instances of expert tribunals, which have been most helpful and have saved a good deal of time in considering matters. Therefore, I think we should have expert tribunals here. I do not like myself the set-up, for all tribunals, of a limited number of members with assessors. I much prefer that those suggested as assessors should have the responsibility of giving their decisions as part of the tribunals. Otherwise, they are irresponsible in the strict sense of the word and are apt to be disregarded.
The procedure of taking members from panels appointed by the Minister in consultation with various interests is one which has worked very well in other spheres. My hon. Friend sitting opposite me at the moment knows how well it has worked in regard to the National Arbitration Tribunal in the four difficult years since Order 1305 came into existence. It is a well-tried procedure and one which I do not think we should lightly reject. Then we have suggested that the tribunals should act by a majority, it being clear that, on the suggested composition, the Minister's representative—a member of his staff, the Superintendent Veterinary Inspector—would be permanently in a minority on the Committee. I know what has been said, and from the Amendments on the Paper it would appear that some of my hon. and gallant Friends are still in doubt on this point. They say that they would prefer the composition, or at any rate the chairmanship, of the tribunal to be in entirely independent


hands. It would, in their view and according to their suggestion, probably be in legal hands. We have considered that matter.

Mr. Petherick: I must make it clear that when the Solicitor-General said "in legal hands," what we meant was that the Lord Chancellor should make the appointment but not necessarily that he should appoint a lawyer.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It was rather difficult, in picking up the course of the Debate, to be clear on that point. We have closely considered the point and, for the reasons I have given the House, we are very anxious—because it is essentially a practical problem—that the matter should be left to a practical tribunal of the kind that we have suggested. There are the difficulties of which many of my hon. and gallant Friends know. Since the State has taken over the veterinary service, there would be difficulties in obtaining a veterinary officer who was not either wholly or partially in the service of, or under contract with, the Ministry, and everyone would agree that it would be unfortunate, if we had not someone with these qualifications on the committee. I ask my hon. and gallant Friends, who are in doubt on this point to remember one very simple and successful official tribunal which has operated for 70 years.
In the field of Income Tax, the assessments to Surtax and certain other matters, are made by some of the Special Commissioners. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) is very familiar with this, because we traversed this ground a short time ago. If the taxpayer objects to an assessment made by the Special Commissioners, the assessment then comes on appeal before certain other Special Commissioners, members of the same body, who sit as an appellate tribunal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok and many other Members who discussed this matter stressed the fact that during these 70 years, despite this rather curiously-seeming procedure, there has been substantially no objection or opposition to the Special Commissioners as a tribunal.
I would like to say, in order to clear up the point—it may be anticipating the matter—that we raise no objection to

representation before this tribunal. We would like to ask the House to consider whether they would insist on legal representation, because, before tribunals like this, it is sometimes convenient to have someone who is not an advocate. It has been done before the National Arbitration Tribunal, and in other cases. We are not objecting to an appeal in the ordinary way to the High Court on a question of law which might follow from the constitution of the tribunal. On a minor point, Sub-section (4) carries out the undertaking which the Minister gave, that the existing registrations would be taken over so that no further application would be necessary.
It is very difficult, when one is establishing a new body, to find a form which satisfies everyone, and I am the first to appreciate that everyone who has spoken from different angles has the most honest, clearly defined and strongly held views as to what the best form of tribunal should be. But I submit that we have, in our approach, shown the logical and proper consideration of functions. We have left the truly justiciable issue to a tribunal and left what is truly the matter of fixing national standards to the Minister. With that approach I suggest that no one should quarrel. We have left the form of the tribunal to the regulations which my right hon. Friend has to make. In honesty and fairness to the House, I have indicated to the House without any equivocation the kind of tribunal which my right hon. Friend and I like. We are the last persons who would ever refuse to learn by experience, but it is our responsibility to suggest to the House what we think is the best form. We are doing that, but we are leaving the Clause in a substantially flexible style so that, if we learn that we are wrong, the Minister will have the power to change it by regulations in the usual way. I ask the House to recognise this as a hard-tried attempt to meet their wishes and to support us in the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can my hon. and learned Friend advise the House on one particular point? Under the proposals which he has before the House he is setting up a tribunal. I want to ask him if he regards it as the result of that, that the provisions of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, apply to that tri-


bunal, and if they do, whether the findings of the tribunal would have the legal effect of an award. As I understand it, by Section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and Section 20 of the Act of 1924, these Acts apply to every arbitration under any Act passed before or after the commencement of these Acts. Very important legal considerations would follow if one of the findings by this tribunal had the legal effect of an award which could be enforced in the manner that such documents are enforced.

The Solicitor-General: I did consider this point and at one stage I had actually prepared a draft with reference to the Arbitration Act, specifically setting out that it should not apply. But my right hon. Friend and those with whom I consulted in the matter preferred that the Arbitration Act should not be excluded, and that the effect should be that if any subject could get recourse to the High Court because of what the tribunal had done, we would do nothing to shut him out from it, and, therefore, I excluded it.

Mr. Petherick: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you now inform the House which of the Amendments to the Amendment, beyond the first one, you intend to call? If one or two of the major Amendments are not called we shall be in some difficulty in stating our points of view. We would prefer to do so on the Amendment as it now stands if you do not happen to call certain of the Amendments to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): As I understand the matter, nearly all the Amendments to the Amendment will be called. The third, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in line 21, leave out "Regulations," and insert "Second Schedule hereto"—is out of Order as it appears on the Order Paper. The two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) more or less stand together, and it might be for the convenience of the House if we took them together in one common discussion. Beyond that I would prefer not to go at the moment; I would rather wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. While

bowing to your Ruling as to the Amendment in my name in line 21, may I ask if it will be in Order to move the Second Schedule as shown on the Order Paper, with the deletion of the second paragraph thereof?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I believe that that would put the matter in Order as I understand it, but if the hon. Member's first Amendment is called and fails then the Amendment to the Schedule would not be called. If the hon. Member proposes to move the Schedule in the approved form, then, in all probability, his Amendment would be called.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am still in a little difficulty. If it is not called, I shall lose my opportunity of raising points of substance on the Amendment as it now stands.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: They can always be raised on the main Question.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Brigadier-Genera Clifton Brown: May I ask the Solicitor-General to explain the tribunal a little more fully? The headquarters of the National Farmers' Union may be in favour of the Bill and of this tribunal, but certainly the local branch which I represent in Berkshire is not. They have written to headquarters to protest vehemently against the form of appeal concerning the registration of milk producers. The Solicitor-General made the point that it did not stop men going to the High Court or to any other appeal. But how does he expect the small dairy farmer, with 10 or 15 cows, to go to a court of law to appeal against the decision of the tribunal? It is really nonsense. If the Minister thinks that he is going to get cleaner milk in that way, I do not see it. He will diminish the number of milk producers very considerably, and, as the Minister knows, a very large number of them are very small producers. They are worried enough by the forms that they have to fill up already.
As a milk producer myself, I do not in the least object to an official of the Ministry of Agriculture coming down to


inspect but I want to point out that you will never get things standardised even through the Ministry. You will get milk standardised, you will possibly get the cattle all tuberculous-free, but you will never get the conditions standardised under which the small and big farmers have to work in Sussex, and in the North of England. You will never get, in my lifetime at any rate, water laid on for every farm. Some have water laid on and some have not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite talked about standardising all these things and said it was better to have Government control of the lot. I say you will never standardise what alone can be standardised by the local authority which understands the tenancy position of farms—whether water is laid on or not, where the wells are and so on. Unless the Solicitor-General can assure me that some members of the tribunal represent the actual local conditions of that part of England in which the milk is produced, I do not think that the tribunal will do what is intended, namely, to produce cleaner millk. The Government must take into consideration local conditions, and they do so. When the Government wish to inspect my young bulls, they ask a local vet, to do it and, in the same way, they must employ the local authority on certain of these things, especially on the sanitary lay out and so on. If he is still able to make some alterations in the tribunal, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must give serious thought to having proper representation of the local authority in the locality in which the milk is produced.

Mr. Price: I think this Amendment goes a long way to meet many of the criticisms which have been raised against what is regarded as the arbitrary nature of this Bill. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) that all wisdom and light rest with the local authorities in this matter. I have had considerable experience of dairy farming, and I have not found that the Minister's representatives are in the least degree unreasonable. At the same time, I think there is a strong case to be made out for the small dairy men, and the large ones too, having the right to appeal to have their case thoroughly considered. As I say, I think this Amendment goes a good way to meet it although, frankly, I am not quite clear as to all the implications of this rather

complicated Amendment. I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to it, but there is an Amendment to the Amendment which may be called, in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better leave that till we come to it.

Mr. Price: I would like to suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the discussion might be made wide enough to cover same of those Amendments, but if you say it is not possible, I will not refer to this one. I think there is a good deal to be said for not having anybody on this tribunal who is a servant of the Minister, and who is in receipt of any salary from the Department. In that respect, I think a case can be made out for having a more independent and judicial point of view. I have just said that I have the greatest respect for the officials of the Minister; at the same time, the rights of the individual citizen are strongly involved here, and we should try to have as impartial a body as possible. I have no doubt it can be done, but I would like whoever replies to make clear who is going to be appointed. On the other hand, I would not like to see particular interests taking entire control. I would not like farmers or consumers only to have the power to decide this matter. Let them be represented, but there should be a number of quite independent persons, having nothing whatever to do with the industry—and certainly that should be the position of the impartial chairman. I do not know whether the Government have in mind something like the Agricultural Wages Board, Where you have representatives of the workers and the farmers and an independent chairman, or in general what is to be the line?
I am a little concerned about appeals. If we are to have appeals to the High Court, I can conceive that the carrying out of this Bill, when it is an Act, might be held up almost indefinitely. I am not quite sure whether it would not be better to aim at getting a judicial body in the first stage, rather than have the whole thing put off for an indefinite period. I am as anxious as are hon. Members on other Benches to safeguard the rights of the individual citizen, but I feel very strongly that nothing must be done to impair the general principle of the Bill, which must aim at getting good, sound regulations in regard to the production of


clean milk. So I hope the Minister, or whoever speaks, will be able to satisfy me on this matter.

Mr. Petherick: I take it that I may move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name and that it will then be possible, on the Motion that the words of my right hon. Friend's Amendment be there inserted, for hon. Members, if they wish, to discuss the main issue. Is that so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better discuss the point in each Amendment separately as it is called.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "existing" to insert "or likely to be existing."
As the Amendment now stands, the Minister may refuse any registration of a dairy farmer if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with. This, in my opinion, is very little more than a drafting Amendment, and all we seek to do is to make sure that a new entrant into the dairy industry—if he is a sound fellow, properly financed and likely to be successful—shall not be refused his registration. Therefore this point arises. As it now is, the Minister can refuse registration if he thinks that, in respect of the farm the man wants to buy or to develop, the conditions are bad. It is quite possible that a man newly entering, or wishing to enter into the trade, may have reclaimed a considerable area of land and wishes to start a dairy farm upon it; or it may be that he takes over an old farm, and the buildings are so bad that they cannot be said to be in a fit state. In the first case, of course, the Minister cannot refuse registration because he cannot say that the conditions are such that it makes it undesirable to give registration. Therefore, it seems to me, unless these words are inserted, it is going to be extremely difficult for anybody, however good or promising or well financed he may be, to set up in the dairy industry at all. If these words are accepted, it will be possible for the Minister, both in the case of the existing dairy farm and in the case of a prospective dairy farm, to accept the registration of a new-corner into the industry.

Mr. Turton: Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton) rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had better warn the hon. Gentleman that if he seconds this Amendment, he cannot move the next one.

Major Studholme: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: I hope, after the explanation I am about to give, that my hon. Friend will realise that his proposed words are not necessary or desirable. Indeed this Amendment almost amounts to a complete volte face from the position which he and his friends took up on the Second Reading, when it was suggested—and pressed very strongly—that the power that was proposed to the Minister under paragraph (b) Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill—to refuse registration, if, in my opinion, the regulations will not be complied with—was far too wide. It was in order to try to meet this point that we inserted the new wording in the Amendment in my name, namely, a requirement that the regulation shall provide
for the refusal of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with and the registration should be refused …
My hon. Friend put forward two hypothetical cases, both of which will be easily solvable in practice. If a man wants to buy a farm, which he wants to convert into a dairy farm, he will be able to approach my authorities and say, "In the conditions prevailing at this dairy farm, is it likely that I shall be given a registration or not? Or what requirements will you expect?" That is currently the practice to-day. If I buy a farm and want to produce tuberculin tested milk I go to the authority concerned and I say, "Will you have a look at this and tell me what your requirements are to enable me to comply with the regulations?" Being sensible people on both sides we reach a conclusion, and I decide whether or not the expense is worth while. I suggest that the only criterion by which the suitability of a dairy farm for registration can be judged is the physical condition prevailing at the time and, where conditions are thoroughly unsatisfactory, I venture to submit it is absurd to suggest that, nevertheless, registration should take place because at some future undetermined time conditions might have improved. If and when con-


ditions have improved, it is always possible to apply for registration. The question will be decided on the facts and conditions prevailing at the time of application. I hope, therefore, that in the light of that explanation my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Petherick: May I put a question to the Minister? In the case of the man who is starting up and has taken the trouble to reclaim a considerable area of land, he cannot possibly claim that conditions are existing. He may have to spend an enormous amount of money and then be refused his application. How is that to be dealt with?

Mr. Hudson: Normally he puts forward plans and if he is going to alter buildings, he has, anyhow, to obtain the consent of the local sanitary authority and will not be in any worse position under the Bill than he is to-day.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will regulations be printed and circulated throughout the country with regard to the requirements made upon a man who is likely to make these alterations?

Mr. Hudson: I think the Regulations will be in such a form that he would be able to ascertain with reasonable certainty whether or not the alterations he proposed to make in a building would satisfy the requirements.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 20, to leave out "a," and to insert "an independent."
I would like to refer at the same time to the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), in line 21, to insert:
(d) provide that no officer or servant of the Minister of Agriculture or of the person objecting shall sit on the tribunal during the hearing of an objection.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I discussed the two together, and I want to make it quite clear that they are not consequential. They are separate points affecting the same tribunal. The Solicitor-General, in introducing this new Amendment, made it clear

that in his opinion the great merit of this tribunal was that it was to be an expert tribunal. In my view it would have been more seemly for the Solicitor-General to have claimed that its great merit was that it was to be an impartial tribunal. I cannot think myself that you will ever get a tribunal to be impartial unless it is made independent. It may be that at the present time the tribunals which are judging these cases are not satisfying the Ministry of Agriculture or some other Department, but when these cases are tried it is the rule that nobody can sit on the cases in court if he is interested either in the Ministry of Agriculture or in the particular farm under consideration. I think it is imperative that we should try to make it clear that Parliament will not tolerate a tribunal that is partial to judge these questions of fact. It was said at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Minister, in his Regulations, was proposing to set up a tribunal containing representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Regional Superintending Inspector——

Mr. Hudson: Would it be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we had a discussion on this Amendment, my hon. Friend's next Amendment in line 21, which he mentioned just now, and also the Amendment in line 21 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), to leave out "Regulations," and insert "Second Schedule hereto?"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if these three Amendments were moved separately, and we had a discussion that covered all the points which, although separate in point of order, are yet very similar in their application to the Bill. That would mean that we could have three Divisions, if necessary, but only one main discussion, which would cover the three Amendments.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That would include the new Schedule, would it not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Schedule is consequential on the Amendment and falls with that Amendment.

Mr. George Griffiths: If the Amendment to the Amendment which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton


(Mr. Turton) has just moved is carried, his second Amendment would be inserted in the Bill, because if there is to be an independent tribunal there could not be on it a servant of the Minister of Agriculture. He could not be independent.

Mr. Turton: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. I was about to explain the purpose of my two Amendments. My first is undoubtedly the greater, and I was making, my case for an independent tribunal. If we are not to have an independent tribunal, but the tribunal which the Minister is proposing, then I claim that on no hearing shall there be people who are concerned in the objection. I got as far as saying that the Minister's tribunal was to be composed of representatives of the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Union and the Regional Superintending Inspector. Frankly, I think it is unwise in a Bill, and in any Regulation, for a Minister to ask any union, whether it be the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Railwaymen, the miners' union or any other, to put forward a member of the tribunal. I do not want this tribunal to be composed of representatives; I want it to be a tribunal representing what the ordinary man thinks about these things, and which knows something about cow barns. At the present time these matters are judged by justices of the peace. The Minister is taking away powers from the courts of summary jurisdiction and is proposing to have a corporate tribunal composed of representatives of the Milk Marketing Board and the N.F.U. and, worst of all, one of his own superior officers. I do not believe that this is the kind of tribunal that the House would desire to see set up either in a Bill or by means of Regulations.
The Minister having given that outline of his view, I think it is desirable the House should make it quite clear that in this Clause, as amended, the tribunal should be an independent tribunal. There are plenty of men in the country who have the requisite knowledge and who are independent. In any region you will find men who have devoted a considerable part of their lives to the study of dairying and dairying methods. There are young men, who are not servants of the Ministry of agriculture or any other body, who have knowledge of clean methods of dairying and veterinary surgery. There

is a wide field from which the Minister can draw for the appointment of this tribunal. The House should particularly beware of a proposal to place on a tribunal one of the Minister's own officers. May I ask the House to remember what the procedure will be? The farmer is applying for a licence to carry on a dairy farm. The Minister's veterinary inspector makes an objection. Under the proposal outlined on the Committee stage the appeal against the objection of the veterinary inspector will be heard by another veterinary officer who is the immediate superior of the one who makes the objection. Every loyal civil servant will, undoubtedly, be naturally prejudiced in favour of the objection, because he must support his junior officer as far as possible. I have been in the Army long enough to see what happens there, and to realise that the same sort of thing happens in any other well run Government Department.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Has the hon. Member tried it on?

Mr. Turton: I have been a junior officer who has met with great loyalty on many occasions from a superior officer. We must have a clear indication from the Minister or the Solicitor-General that when the tribunal is appointed one of the Minister's own officers will not be placed on it. I hope we shall get an assurance that the tribunal will be fully representative of all interests in dairying. I do not find a great deal of difference of opinion between the N.F.U. and the Milk Marketing Board. I have great respect for them, but I believe that this matter is primarily one of public health and, secondly, one of agriculture, and I should expect the Lord Chancellor or the Minister, when appointing the tribunals, to draw from men who have had considerable experience in health and agricultural matters, men who represent local authorities, men such as veterinary inspectors in private practice or members of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association. These are the types of men I should hope to find on an independent tribunal which was to judge these questions.
If the House rejects—as I hope it will not—the insertion of the words "an independent" then I ask Members to accept my second Amendment to provide that on the hearing of any one case there shall not sit an interested party to deter-


mine the rights or wrongs of the objection. I have drawn it widely; it is not merely an officer or servant of the Minister involved but, equally, an officer or servant of the person objecting. It is a well recognised canon of justice that no prejudiced man shall hear any particular case. Suppose, for instance, the farmer who was trying for a licence, which the Minister was refusing, was a member of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Would anybody think it right that on that tribunal, determining his appeal, there should be another member of that society? Clearly that would be wrong. Equally, take the case of a large land owner. Supposing he was having his licence cancelled, would the House tolerate an agent of that land owner being on the tribunal? I put these two examples to give the two extremes.
I am quite sure that the House does not wish the tribunal to be weighted in favour of the Minister by having on it an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture. We do not want to have weighting of the tribunals. I very much regretted in Committee when the Minister started talking about the tribunals being weighted. We want judicial tribunals to determine this and I ask the House to accept my first Amendment. I do not think the Bill requires to state in detail who should be members. I think we should lay down the pattern, and the pattern should be impartiality and independence. For that reason I ask the House to accept my Amendment rather than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who goes into some detail and wants a representative of the farming industry and another of milk consumers.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
This matter has been considered by the industry as a whole rather thoroughly. On 12th April and 5th May there were. meetings of the principal agricultural organisations of the country, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central Landowners Association, and the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union were also present. They drew up a statement of their view of the lines on which they hoped agriculture would develop. They said among other things:
In return for a guaranteed price level all owners and occupiers of rural land must ac-

cept the obligation to maintain a reasonable standard of good husbandry and good estate management and submit to the necessary measures of direction and guidance, subject to the provision of an appeal to an impartial tribunal.
I submit that "impartial" and "independent" are practically the same words. This statement is one to which I subscribe, as I think a great many other people do. To add to its present importance, this is the first occasion, as far as I know, on which the Minister has begun to implement some of the things that we wish for. I am very glad to see it and I hope we shall see many more, but I think it is very important that we should start in the right way and in the way indicated by this very large representative meeting, that is, that where there are regulations there should be opportunities for an appeal to an impartial tribunal.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I support the Amendment. I am amazed that the Minister should have asked for this power. It is a one-sided power. If a tribunal of this kind were set up in mining districts, there would be the devil to pay all over the country. If he proposed to set up a tribunal and to appoint someone engaged in the industry as chairman, we would not stand for it at all. If the tribunal is not independent there will always be a bias and, no matter which way it goes, people will feel that they have not had a square deal. I have had representations from farmers and farm workers in my constituency. They asked me, "What is the Minister up to now?" I was speaking at a trade union meeting the other night. I do not belong to the Farmers' Union. They were young and very intelligent men and I was delighted to address an Agricultural Workers Union meeting. No one could put the case better than the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has done. He knows something about it. He has been in the Army and he has given his experience. If he, as a junior officer, reported something to an officer above him against someone else, it is human nature that the officer above him would say, "All right. I believe what you say." It is no wonder that the Minister is not looking at me. I think he is ashamed of this proposal and will withdraw it.
If he puts his regional officer in charge, he is bound to look at that officer's side of it. The sense of the House on all


sides is against him and I expect if the Independents and Common Wealth and the Communist Party were in the House they would support us. It is obvious that this is a very unpopular way of constituting the tribunal. I support the Amendment whole-heartedly.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I should like to bring the House back to the Bill and the situation that we are trying to meet. We want to get cleaner milk.

Mr. Griffiths: Have I not been on the Bill?

Sir D. Gunston: I apologise to the hon. Member. He was certainly on the Bill. Present conditions are very difficult. When the Minister first introduced the Bill I did not have a single letter of complaint from farmers. I do not know that the Farmers' Union or anyone even asked for a tribunal.

Sir E. Grigg: Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the resolution quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) demanding an impartial tribunal in matters of this kind was passed at a meeting at which the National Farmers' Union was represented?

Sir D. Gunston: The National Farmers' Union may have been represented, but they have never asked for a tribunal as far as I know. It was suggested not by the opponents but by the supporters of the Measure that that tribunal should be set up. What would happen if we adopted the suggestion and the Amendment were accepted? It would mean that no man could sit on the tribunal who was a member of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Turton: I never said that. No officer or servant of either of the parties could possibly sit, but I thought it unwise to mention any union in the Bill. It is far better to let the Minister or the Lord Chancellor choose completely independent people. Let him draw from local authorities, from the farmers and others. It is not right for my hon. and gallant Friend to suggest that I said that no member of the Farmers' Union could be appointed.

Sir D. Gunston: In practice I believe it would be very difficult to have mem-

bers of the National Farmers' Union appointed if the tribunal had to be independent. It is suggested by the Attorney-General and the Minister of Agriculture that a panel should be set up for consultation with him drawn from the Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board. It is a remarkable fact that the farmers as a whole are in favour of the Bill and have agreed to it, which means that many farmers will have to accept Regulations which are not in force at present. That is a very great and a very wise advance, because you have to secure clean milk and to obtain the confidence of the country in clean milk. If it is going to work, you have to carry the farming community with you, and it is very remarkable that we have carried them. If you get a representative of the Farmers' Union on the tribunal it will help very much, but you have the other suggestion of a representative of the Milk Marketing Board to represent the consumers. In that case how are you going to work the tribunal? You cannot have a representative of the Milk Marketing Board and the Farmers' Union as well. I do not see how you are going to carry it out.

Mr. Petherick: My hon. and gallant Friend does not begin to understand the position. No one has said that one of the appointed members should not be a member of the Farmers' Union. They may be anyone, members of the Farmers' Union or anything else, but they must be persons independent of the Ministry.

Sir D. Gunston: I cannot see how a man can be independent if he is a member of the Farmers' Union, or a farmer, when a discussion comes up. Now we come to the difficulty of the chairman. I see my hon. Friend's point. He suggests it is almost the act of a Hitler or a Mussolini to appoint one of these officers as chairman. But what would happen? Let us take the analogy of the junior Army officer. The veterinary officer on the tribunal is bound to support the veterinary officer of the Ministry.

Mr. G. Griffiths: He would already have the evidence in his own hands.

Sir D. Gunston: He may or may not have. Who will this chairman be? He will be bound to be an officer of the Ministry. I think veterinary surgeons are sensible men. They know the standard


which the country wants, and I do not think they will be unduly prejudiced. We want to get a uniform, minimum, decent standard throughout the country. That is all we want. If you are not to have as chairman somebody from the Union or a veterinary officer of the Ministry, whom are you to have? If you say you have got to have an independent person, who is it going to be?

Captain Cobb: Month after month the Minister of Pensions said it was impossible to man these pension appeal tribunals, but they have been manned and are sitting now.

Sir D. Gunston: I repeat, whom are you going to get? You might get a man in one county who will not know the standard in another county. If you have these veterinary officers I think you will get a sensible, uniform, minimum standard throughout the country and they will know, more or less, what other districts think is a minimum standard. I think, on the whole, the House should not be led away by the arguments that have been put forward, because we are dealing purely with a practical matter—trying to get clean milk. On the whole, this Amendment goes a long way to meeting what my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I listened with great interest to the argument put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) in favour of having tribunals which were neither independent nor impartial and his sole argument seemed to be that he apprehended a difficulty in finding fair-minded people in this country who could apply their minds to this question. I entirely disagree with him and, indeed, I must admit that I was not entirely able to follow the logic of his argument. Let us consider what, in fact, this tribunal has to do. I gather that the hon. Baronet is against any tribunal at all. If he will read the Amendment with the Bill he will see that the tribunal has to consider questions of fact, and nothing more. All the tribunal has to consider is whether the Regulations have been or will be broken, as the Minister's representatives will suggest, or whether they have not been broken and will not be broken. That depends upon what is put in front of that tribunal by the Minister's representatives, on the one side, and by the farmer and

his witnesses on the other. It is a pure question of fact, and just the same question of fact that a jury has to decide day in and day out in this country. We do not demand that our juries should be experts on a particular subject.
I do not follow the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that it was necessary to have an expert tribunal on this matter, solely to decide a question of fact—whether or not a farmer was guilty or not guilty of a breach of the Regulations. He gave the instance of certain tribunals which are manned by experts, but the general course in this country is, I think, to have your fact-finding tribunal completely independent and impartial. When the facts have been found by the tribunal the Minister will have to decide, as I see it, what sentence shall be imposed; whether a farmer shall be bound over and given another chance; whether he shall be struck off, or what shall be done with him. I am content that the responsibility for that should be left with the Minister; but the suggestion that, in addition to the Minister having his servant acting as prosecutor before this tribunal, he should also, in addition to acting as judge and deciding what is to be done if the farmer is found guilty, have someone on the jury to determine whether or not a breach has been committed, seems to me quite wrong. I apprehend no difficulty at all in finding three or four people who can listen to what is put before them and arrive at a correct decision. I have no apprehension that there will be many of these tribunals required throughout the country, nor do I apprehend that they will have much work to do. I am concerned, however, that they should be impartial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) rather questioned the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members with regard to putting forward a Schedule to this Bill. I would like to see the constitution of this tribunal dealt with in the Bill, because it seems to me that is the right place for it. In the Pensions Appeal Bill we dealt with it in full detail and it seems to me that we should do so here too. I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that what we really want is an independent body, and it does not very much matter how


the personnel is arrived at. Indeed, the only reason why in the draft Amendment which stands in my name we have put down one representative of the farming industry and one representative of the consumers' interest is because of the words used by the Minister on the Committee stage and our desire to meet him as far as we could. But the vital thing is that the people on the tribunal should be free from bias. If you want a fair decision you ought not to appoint anyone who is known to have, or is likely to have, a bias in one direction or another.
One final point. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury said that farmers had never raised this point. It may be that in his part of the country they have not done so, but when this point came to the notice of farmers in my part of the country they took a very keen interest in it indeed. I know they are not satisfied, at the moment, with the concession the Minister made on the Committee stage. Personally, I welcome the Amendment in his name to-day, and hope he will go a little bit further and make this tribunal as fair as we all want it to be by providing that no interested party shall be appointed to it.

Sir E. Grigg: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has gone such a long way to meet the feeling of the House in regard to these provisions in the Bill that I hope he will just take one further step and meet what he must realise is the overwhelming feeling in the House. We really do not want to be controversial about this, and there is not one of us who does not share the intense desire that this country should have the highest possible standard of milk production. Even in politics there are some ultimate values, and the rights of the subject are things which none of us can play about with without the greatest danger. We all feel that every man must have a chance in a free and democratic society, and what we are asking for is a very simple thing. I do not want to say that the tribunal should be of one kind or another; I am prepared to leave that very largely to the discretion of the Minister. All that I ask is that the chairman of the tribunal should be an impartial and independent man. That is the sole point. By "impartial and independent" I mean a man who is neither sharing the case of the prosecution nor sharing the case of the defendant.

That is the simple point, and that is what the House of Commons, which is very representative of the country in this matter, feels very strongly. I was astonished to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) that he has heard nothing on this subject from farmers. His correspondence with farmers must be very eclectic,* because I have heard a great deal both from farmers in his constituency, in which I reside, and farmers in my own constituency and other parts of the country. They must have formed the impression that he is not agreeable to receiving communications of this character.

Sir D. Gunston: I must inform my hon. Friend that the representatives of the Farmers' Union in my constituency have thanked me for supporting this Bill.

Sir E. Grigg: I also support the Bill, but that does not go one step forward. The issue at the moment is a special question which has nothing to do with the main merits of the Bill. The Solicitor-General must be aware of what are plainly the merits of the very simple thing for which we are asking. I believe that there is an overwhelming feeling in the House and the country in favour of the case we are making, and I should deeply regret to see the great efficiency, enthusiasm and ability which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has put into the service of agriculture in the course of this war compromised by his standing fast on a question of principle which has nothing to do with clean milk but has a great deal to do with the liberties of Englishmen.

Mr. Tinker: The Solicitor-General has told us that he was willing to listen, to any arguments for an improvement in these provisions. I am not an interested party and know nothing about this business, so that I have been able to listen from an independent position. After listening to all that has been said I feel that there ought to be an independent tribunal. A tribunal carries with it the implication of independence. Whenever we talk about a tribunal we have in mind a body of men who are free from bias and are impartial. The Minister has said that he is willing to set up a tribunal, but it will be such that there will be left in the minds of applicants for licences
* [See OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1944; Vol. 402, C. 194.]


the idea that they have had somebody to judge their cases who was already prejudiced against them. They will have a feeling of dissatisfaction that the thing was weighted against them and that they had not had a fair chance. In matters like this we have to have regard to the feeling of the House as a whole, and I am satisfied that there is a strong feeling in favour of an independent tribunal. In the mining world, if we had to go before a tribunal which we thought had been chosen by the Ministry or the coalowners, we should feel that we were not getting justice. That feeling will be in the minds of the applicants for a licence under this Bill if the tribunal is not independent. I appeal to the Minister to bow to the wishes of the House in this matter.

Major Studholme: I agree with everything that has been said with the exception of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thorn-bury {Sir D. Gunston), and with that I entirely disagree. It was very largely irrelevant to the point at issue. We are grateful to the Minister for having gone so far to meet so many of the points that were raised by my hon. Friends during the Committee stage, but I think that he might go a little further and I hope that he will accept the Amendment. It is a vital principle that the tribunal should be really independent. It has been argued that by having one of the Minister's regional superintendent veterinary officers on the tribunal we should obtain uniformity, because they alone have the expert knowledge of the standards and so on required throughout the country. Surely there must be other people in the country besides these 15 officers with suitable experience and commonsense who are capable of exercising sound judgment, I doubt whether we want to sacrifice the vital principle of independent justice for a problematical uniformity. It is legally unsound and psychologically stupid to have these people on the tribunal. None of the members of the tribunal should be a servant of the Minister. However conscientious, able and disinterested the Minister and his officials may be, they are not the sole repositories of human wisdom, and they make mistakes like other people. The fact that a member of the tribunal was a nominee of the Minister would at once lay him open to the suspicion that he was biased. It is essential that the

tribunal should be entirely independent. I believe that farmers are now waking up to the implications of the Bill, and I do not believe that the Government will win their confidence unless they set up a tribunal entirely independent of Whitehall.

Sir W. Wayland: As a dairy farmer, I entirely support the independence of this tribunal, but I do not agree with those who are against the Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board appointing representatives. The Farmers' Union is composed of about half the farmers in the country, and its chief committee is composed of men in whom the farmers have every confidence. At a meeting of farmers on Saturday I asked them whether they would be prepared to support a tribunal composed of a representative appointed by the Farmers' Union, one by the Milk Board, and one by the Sanitary Inspectors' Institute. Every one said that they would be. At that meeting there were about 50 dairy farmers and it was a representative meeting. I have every confidence in the Farmers' Union appointing an independent man. I have every confidence that the Milk Marketing Board, with which I have had transaction since its foundation, would appoint an independent man. I am also confident that the Sanitary Inspectors' Institute would appoint an independent man. We should also have confidence in the Lord Chancellor appointing a legal representative as chairman. If we had that independent chairman it would be a perfect tribunal from the farmer's point of view. There should be a representative of the National Farmers' Union, a representative of the Milk Marketing Board, one from the Sanitary Institute and one appointed by the Lord Chancellor as a legal representative.

Mr. James Griffiths: I venture to intervene for a moment to put some of my own experience at the disposal of the House, in connection with tribunals, and in order to offer a suggestion. In setting up a tribunal, one has to be satisfied that its constitution will be such as to create confidence among those who will be affected by its decisions. Its constitution cannot be divorced from the job it has to do. In order to create that confidence, it must create the impression, not only that it will arrive at an inde-


pendent judgment, but that it has the technical knowledge without which any such judgment is of no use. I have had to appear before various kinds of tribunal, and once or twice I have sat as a member of a tribunal. I have had to argue on mining problems before an independent, single arbitrator; before a body of arbitrators; before what is called an independent tribunal—and I presume that what hon. Members are now asking for, as an independent tribunal, is that its members will be drawn from outside the industry affected. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then perhaps hon. Members will let us know what they mean.

Mr. Turton: Perhaps I might make this point clear. What we mean by "independent" is that nobody should be a member of the tribunal who was likely to be a party to the appeal; in other words, DO member of the Ministry of Agriculture should be a member of that tribunal. Otherwise, the members should be good, knowledgeable people.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Member for clearing up that point. I was frying to apply my own experience. I have appeared before a tribunal of three people dealing with mining, an industry with its own technique, when the people on the tribunal knew nothing at all about mining. I did not question their independence of mind or character, but it was most painful to try to explain points which were quite beyond them, as they did not understand technical mining matters expressed in technical language. I can imagine nothing worse than appearing before a tribunal composed of very eminent people of very great knowledge, for whom the special body of knowledge in question is a closed book, particularly when, as in this case, they have to decide matters of fact which presume a knowledge of agriculture. I have come to the conclusion that a tribunal which has to decide matters of great importance must be such, therefore, as to create real confidence and satisfy any person who has to appear before it that the members of a tribunal understand the full implications of his case. If it is suggested that the independent tribunal should be composed of people not connected with, and largely ignorant of, agriculture, I suggest that that would be a mistake.

Mr. Turton: Has the hon. Member had experience of a tribunal hearing a case when a member of the tribunal is a superior officer of the prosecutor?

Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to that point. I was offering an opinion and a suggestion, as a result of my experience. It is essential for some members of the tribunal to have real, practical knowledge of the matters they are to investigate. If I was led to believe that hon. Members were suggesting a tribunal of people with no technical knowledge, I apologise. The best kind of tribunal is, in my opinion, one of three members, two of whom are chosen because of their ripe knowledge of the matters in question, and the other, a person of experience, independent, acting as an independent chairman. I have appeared before all kinds of tribunal, but if I had to choose I would not like to go before three persons drawn from all over the country, and knowing nothing about mining. I would like three persons who understood the industry, its language and its problems, and the full implications and consequences of any case that came before them. No industry has suffered more than the mining industry from unforeseen consequences of the decisions of tribunals who did not fulfil those qualifications. The sort of tribunal I would like to see adopted for my own industry, and which I suggest might be the best in the present case, is one containing two members with technical knowledge and experience and a third member of experience and judgment, and with ability to arrive at an independent decision.

Mr. Petherick: In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member who has just addressed the House was pursuing a false scent, through an open door.

Mr. Griffiths: I did not think I was pushing any door. I could see hon. Members opposite apparently in conflict, and it occurred to me that I might be able to help to cement them together.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. Member had the idea that we were urging the adoption of a certain form of tribunal which was far from our intentions. We had not any idea that the members of the tribunal should be persons who painted spots on rocking horses, for example, and knew nothing about the industry. We had


been trying to persuade the Minister of Agriculture and the Solicitor-General to agree to an independent tribunal, which does not mean a tribunal knowing nothing about the trade of dairy farming. When the hon. Member really understood what it was we wanted, he was in his concluding remarks in entire agreement with us. All we have been asking for is a tribunal of three persons, of whom the chairman should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and should be an entirely independent person, supported by two members who know and are conversant with the trade in question, from one angle or the other. We can be very grateful that we have the complete support of the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the people for whom I speak may in future have the equal support of the hon. Member.

Mr. Petherick: My hon. Friend will certainly have my complete and wholehearted support on the rare occasions when his party happens to be pursuing the truth.

Mr. Griffiths: Through an open door?

Mr. Petherick: As the hon. Member for Llanelly quite rightly pointed out, it is important that a person who comes before the tribunal shall be satisfied that the tribunal knows something about the job and the trade in question. But that is only half of that on which he has to be satisfied. The other half upon which he must be satisfied is that they not only know the trade but that they will give him an absolutely fair and independent decision.
May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) this possibility? I do not know if he is a dairy farmer or not. If he is, supposing he had an admirable herd, very well kept in very good premises, and that he always produced clean milk, and that for some reason or another his licence was refused or cancelled, he would then raise, quite properly, a very serious objection. Supposing there had been a miscarriage of justice on the part of a servant of the Ministry, and my hon. and gallant Friend went before the tribunal and found as chairman of it, a veterinary officer in the employment of the Ministry who had already had their report from another employee of the Ministry, would he feel satisfied, if his registration was cancelled,

that he had received an absolutely fair and unqualified decision to which he could not possibly take exception? Of course he would not. He would feel a sense of grievance, and that is the kind of thing which may happen. It will not happen all over the country if these tribunals are not independent. The servants of the Ministry will not consciously oppress. Of course, they will not. What we have to look at is not the vast majority of cases in which reasonable justice may be done, but the small number where injustice may be done.
What we mean by an independent judiciary in this country is a judiciary independent of His Majesty's servants, and independent of the Executive. It is not only necessary that justice should be done. It is also part of the judicial system that if injustice has been done it shall be rectified. It seems to me clear that there must be a tribunal which will give confidence, on the one side, that it is impartial and independent, and on the other side, that the persons on it know something about the trade. What can be simpler or better than a tribunal such as has been suggested, with an independent chairman, appointed maybe by the Lord Chancellor, maybe by the Minister, and two others who, by the nature of their employment, know something about the trade either from the producing or consuming angle?
I hope that this will be put into the Bill and will not form part of the regulations, and furthermore, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) I hope that no association, whether it is the National Farmers' Union or the Co-operative Wholesale Society, or any association shall be mentioned in the course of the Bill. I think it is unsound. It assumes that only certain associations or societies really know anything about the trade in question. That is entirely undesirable, and, far more important, it is a sort of vestige, or, if I may use a non-Parliamentary expression, a hint of a slight smell, of a beginning of the corporate State, and we must beware of that, any time it raises its ugly head. A succession of Governments over a period of time have resisted on Committee stages, time after time, any introduction of names of associations, and I think they have been quite right. I urge the Government to resist such a desire on this occasion or to any claim that may be made to introduce such associations into


this Bill. I am quite sure the Minister would be wise to give in to what I believe ' is the overwhelming view of persons in all parties in this House that we must have an independent tribunal, so that justice may not only be done but may be seen to be done.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I think my right hon. Friend the Minister will have to give way. I have been a dairy farmer on rather a large scale for a good many years. Unless these Debates had taken place on this subject I would have said that it did not much matter who formed the tribunal; they would have to decide perfectly elementary matters, decisions of simple fact. But one thing that is necessary is that the farmer who is appealing against the decision of the local veterinary inspector should feel that the people who hear the appeal and make the decision are honest, impartial fellows—that he must feel confidence. I did not think it would matter who they were and what offices they held, but after all these Debates, if the Minister is still determined, and resists this or any similar Amendment, I think he will merely have convinced the farmers that he does not mean to have an impartial tribunal, and that it will destroy the confidence which is absolutely essential to the administration of this Bill. So I hope that in spite of his difficulties—I know his difficulties—he will give way to what seems to be almost the unanimous opinion of those who have spoken.

The Solicitor-General: I have listened with the greatest possible attention and tried to follow every point which has come from every quarter of the House, and I hope that hon. Friends in all quarters will realise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend and I are on this matter. We started with the views that were expressed on the Committee stage, and we did our utmost to evolve a proper approach to the problem. That approach has been, I think, unanimously accepted by the House, that is the separation of the sphere of facts and the finding of facts and the determination of facts, from that of the operation of this policy by the Minister. That we are, in general, agreed upon and the question we have been considering to-day is the more limited question, What is the best form of tribunal to deal with the findings of fact? And in his intervention a short time ago,

I suggest my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was putting the view too highly as to the unimportance of expert knowledge and experience in the composition of this tribunal. My hon. Friend was sweeping that aside, on the basis that so long as you got three men of good will, then it did not really matter whether they know much about the subject or not.

Mr. Turton: I would beg my hon. and learned Friend, bearing in mind his position, to withdraw that. I think I can repeat my opening words. I quoted my right hon. Friend as having said that he regarded this tribunal as being in the first place an expert tribunal. My rejoinder was that the first thing was that it should be an impartial tribunal, and that the expert matter came second. It is quite unfair and improper to suggest I said that any Tom, Dick or Harry should form this tribunal.

The Solicitor-General: I at once withdraw. I am very sorry indeed if I misunderstood my hon. Friend, and the last thing that I should desire to do would be to misrepresent him, but I certainly understood that the balance of my hon. Friend's speech was that the expert knowledge was, comparatively, an unimportant matter in dealing with this subject. That is the point which I want to controvert. If it is not my hon. Friend's point, at any rate I want to controvert that point. I thought that most of us were in agreement. It was put very fairly and comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that you had to have someone who understood the subject, and that, if you did not, anyone who appeared before such a body had his difficulties doubled. I think the majority of us want to find a tribunal which has this expert knowledge. We are going to get that in part, it is suggested, from the representative of the producers' panel. I do not think it matters very much whether he is a representative of the National Farmers' Union or not, so long as he is someone who represents the producers' side, and I suggest that he should be appointed in the usual way, from a panel, set up after representations from the producers' side of the industry. We are going to get someone representing the consumers' side. Then we have two members of the tribunal, with regard to whom there is general agreement in the House.
What are we to do after that point? My right hon. Friend and I have to envisage not only the possibility, but in many cases the probability, of disagreement between these divergent points of view, and we have to consider how the tribunal can best be strengthened to deal with that position. I should like to impress upon the House that in this case it will be an essential part of the operation of the tribunal that they will go and see the premises, and that they will in many cases largely make up their minds on the question of the premises, the equipment, and the probable methods, from an actual view of the premises which are in discussion in the case. Therefore, again I think that we want somebody who will contribute expert knowledge. I am very chary of quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I hope that he will believe that it is with the most entire innocence that I attribute it to him if it was somebody who said it, and I ask his forgiveness in advance. But I think it was my hon. Friend who suggested an independent veterinary surgeon. With great relief, I find that I am right. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has appreciated the same difficulty as my right hon. Friend and I do, that we might want somebody else, apart from the producers' and consumers' representatives, who is able to contribute the expert knowledge on which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, rightly, in my view, sets such store.
The difficulty, I am informed, in regard to veterinary surgeons is that, apart from the regional veterinary superintendents of the Ministry, a great number of other veterinary surgeons who would be suitable assist the Ministry in one way or another. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown), who spoke earlier, on a different Amendment, called attention to that fact, and mentioned the case of the veterinary surgeon that he would employ coming round on behalf of the Ministry to deal with his bulls. I hope that the House will bear this in mind, because I am trying to find the composition which will meet the House and which will meet the problem. I hope that the House will consider that the need for a veterinary surgeon is a strong one, and that there is this practical difficulty, if you are going to have a veterinary surgeon, of having someone

entirely independent of the Ministry, and not under contract or connected with it.
Several of my hon. and learned Friends put the question of interest of members of the tribunal. They did not draw the distinction, which I think we have to draw when we consider a matter of this kind, between a particular interest, related to a case which comes before the tribunal, and a general interest, which may or may not have some effect. My hon. Friend opposite, who has appeared before so many benches of magistrates, in so many cases, knows particularly the difference I have in mind, and so does everyone who has had to deal with the point. It is a very real point. If you have somebody who has actually had to deal with the case under discussion, or with some aspect of the case under discussion, that is quite fatal, and you cannot have him on the tribunal for a moment. But when you come to consider the effect that a person's position may have, that, I suggest, is a different fact, and I ask all my hon. Friends who have considered this to think again as to whether it is really fatal that a tribunal should consist in part—if necessary, in quite a small part—of a senior official of the Ministry.
This is not the first time that it has been tried. It has happened in many aspects, as my hon. Friends know, of my right hon. Friend's own Ministry. When you have had to appeal to the Minister, the appeal has taken the course of going before a senior inspector, of one kind or the other, of the Ministry, who has heard the appeal. Again and again that has occurred during the last 25 years, without complaint. I suggest that the House considers this compromise. We have, as I ventured to point out in moving the original Amendment, agreed not only to the tribunal, but to four other important points which my hon. Friends behind me suggested, on the Committee stage, were important.
The only outstanding point is this question of composition. I ask the House very strongly, bearing in mind the length to which we have gone to meet the requests that have been made to us, to leave this matter, without enforcing the Amendment that any member of the staff of the Ministry is, ipso facto, disqualified from being a member of the tribunal. I ask the House not to press that upon us, but to allow my right hon. Friend the


freedom which is given by the proposal to constitute the tribunal in accordance with the regulations on his assurance that he will consider again the composition of the tribunal, and will consider specially the point which has been urged by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and others that there should be an independent chairman. I have been trying, as my hon. Friends know, for a long time now, to get what will be a via media acceptable to everyone, and I suggest that if we had an independent chairman, and if we had also these representatives of consumers and producers, the House should really allow my right hon. Friend this grace—that he should be allowed to consider the question of the remaining composition of the tribunal, and that he should have to put that in his regulations, which regulations will come before the House.

Sir Herbert Williams: They will not come up for amendment.

The Solicitor-General: No, but they will come up for discussion and, of course, if the opinion of the House is still as it was when my right hon. Friend has reconsidered the position, my hon. Friend knows the method which can be adopted by which the will of the House can be enforced. I ask the House to consider at this stage that that will be sufficient, having the undertaking that the composition of the tribunal will be the subject of regulations, that the introduction of an independent chairman will be reconsidered by my right hon. Friend from the most favourable point of view, and not to tie us down to the exclusion of any member of the staff of the Ministry, because it may well be—and I ask hon. Members to appreciate this point—that the best way of dealing with that would be to introduce another balancing factor, which would give you two and two on each side, with an independent chairman in the centre as chairman of the tribunal. It is because I should deeply regret if the House committed itself to-day to the exclusion of a possible contribution of real help in deciding this problem, that I ask the House not to press for any definition in the Bill, but to leave it to the regulations with the assurances I have given.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Others much better versed than I am in the procedure of Parliament will be able

to judge to what extent my right hon. Friend the Minister has made a concession. I think he has made a very considerable concession, but I am still a little distrustful of it, because, in pointing out the concession he had already made, he went on and instanced to us that he made a concession on the matter of appointing the tribunal. But what is the good of a tribunal unless it is an impartial tribunal? I only rise to emphasise this point. If my right hon. Friend is going to reconsider the composition of the tribunal, will he do so with this in mind? What happens in this House is extraordinarily important to him and to the rest of us, but so is what happens in the country, and I want very strongly to support what the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthorpe) said. The Minister of Agriculture, in the next few months, has got to impose, or, rather, to persuade the farming industry to accept, a great deal of regimentation which it will not like. It would be unnatural if it did like it, but in the national interest it must be done.
It seems to me that in this present case the Minister is well able to make a further concession, and would be well advised to do so because it is quite clear that, after the Minister of Agriculture has appointed these tribunals, they will be profoundly distrusted by agriculturists if they are not going to have the emphasis laid upon their impartiality. Upon the fact that you must have expert knowledge on the tribunal, there is general agreement, and there has never been any real difference, but these tribunals, surely, must convince the country that they are impartial, and it is mainly in support of what the right hon. Member for Rye said that I urge the Minister to remember that.

Mr. Hudson: I have been very much interested in what my hon. Friend just said, but I venture to suggest to the House that we have to consider this from a realistic point of view. It is all very well talking about an impartial tribunal. The tribunal which the Solicitor-General suggested should be set up will really consist of a member from a panel of the Milk Marketing Board, a member from a panel of the N.F.U., and a senior member of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am as anxious as anybody that the decisions on facts of this tribunal should be regarded by everybody as being impartial.


Obviously, if I am to decide the issue, I must assume that the tribunal, in finding the facts on which eventually I am to base a decision, has reached an impartial, but also a correct and knowledgeable, conclusion on the facts. I really fail to see why it should be considered that a member of the National Farmers' Union panel or the Milk Marketing Board panel is impartial and yet a member of my staff is not. I venture to remind the House of the origin and purpose of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to try to remedy a state of affairs in the production of milk which, by general agreement, is unsatisfactory. The solution put forward in the Bill—not necessarily the only solution but, at all events, a solution accepted by the House in principle on Second Reading—is that the Minister should now be responsible, personally and through his Department, for the provisions for cleaning up the milk. I have to satisfy two sets of people. I have to satisfy the farmer that his case is being regarded impartially, but I have also to satisfy the public——

Mr. Gallacher: And that is what they are all forgetting.

Mr. Hudson: —and consumers of milk, that this tribunal—[Interruption.] I have to satisfy the public of this country that this tribunal which we are setting up, in deference to the expressed views of the House, will not only see that the farmer has justice but that the consumer is protected. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir H. Williams) had been in the House at the time, he would have heard from the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) what nearly everybody in the House thought was a very convincing speech in favour of an expert body on these questions.

Sir J. Lamb: Under an independent chairman.

Mr. G. Griffiths: An independent man, not a regional officer.

Mr. Hudson: It must be a knowledgeable body and an expert body. The possible solution as suggested by the hon. Member for Llanelly would be a body consisting of an independent chairman and a representative, on the one hand, of the producers, which would include also the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producers' organisation, or the National

Farmers' Union, and, on the other hand, a representative of the consumers. That is the sort of body suggested. You would have, on the one hand, the producers and, on the other hand, the consumers represented, and I am undertaking to see that it should be done. That is quite a possible tribunal, to which I myself would not have any particular objection, but it would not be necessarily acceptable all round.
I am prepared to stand by the offer made by my hon. and learned Friend. This sort of thing cannot come in for a considerable number of months, because we cannot get the necessary staffs together, though we want to feel that we can make a beginning with the organisation. It cannot come in until the appointed day and the regulations have been approved by the House. I would suggest that we should leave it at that. I am aware of the views expressed in certain quarters of the House, and I will do my best to see if we can, in the course of the next month, work out some scheme which will achieve the object I have in view. But I have responsibility under the Bill and I have to be satisfied that the tribunal will be a competent body, otherwise it would be very foolish of me to undertake responsibility for the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: It is necessary that I should say a word or two in support of these forlorn Ministers, who are handicapped by the "yes" men. I am in favour of an impartial tribunal. I am of the opinion that the Minister is an impartial Minister in this respect, and I am satisfied that a representative appointed by the Minister would be impartial. But there are two things that are being mixed. There is the question of impartiality, and the question of independence. Hon. Members opposite, in the guise of impartiality, are asking for independence. Independence from what? They are asking for a tribunal independent of the Minister and of this House. As the Minister said, it is not just the dairymen who are concerned with this, but the people of the country. Members on the other side want two nice country gentlemen and a nice legal man appointed by the Lord Chancellor to take into their hands, independently of this House, the fate of the people of this country. What is the matter with the House of Commons? Hon. Members, time and time


again, get up and argue against totalitarianism, and yet they are introducing the worst type of totalitarianism in handing away their own powers.
If the Minister appointed a representative to the tribunal and any Member of this House could prove that that representative at a particular point showed the slightest partiality towards one section or another, that representative would be condemned and thrown out immediately. Time and time again Members put questions and write to Ministers and the matters are considered by the Department. Is there any Member who dare get up in this House and say that impartial consideration has not been given to their complaint? What sort of conditions are we getting into because of the "yes" men continually insisting on taking all the power from the House of Commons and getting people outside to decide independently of the Minister and of this House? I say, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, you should have an expert chairman, a representative of the trade and a representative from the Minister representing the people of this country. Whom does the Minister represent? [An HON. MEMBER: "Southport."] He does not represent Southport; as a Minister he represents the people of this country. I wonder if any hon. Member opposite who has been making such play of impartiality would dare

Division No. 29.
AYES.



Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kimball, Major L.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h. Univ.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Linstead, H. N.


Apsley, Lady
Foster, W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Frankel, D.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.


Barr, J.
Fyfe, Major D. P. M.
McEntee, V. la T.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gallacher, W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Mack, J. D.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Glanville, J. E.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benson, G.
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mathers, G.


Bossom, A. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Groves, T. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Cary, R. A.
Guy, W. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Pownall, Lt. Col. Sir Assheton


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Pym, L. R.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan.
Rankin, Sir R.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hubbard, T. F.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Drewe, C.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Salt, E. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
John, W
Scott, R D. (Wansbeck)

to get up in this House and say that the Minister of Agriculture is not impartial and not to be trusted. What is all this fuss about impartiality?

Sir E. Grigg: We are not dealing with the Minister of Agriculture as being a particular individual but as a large number of individuals who may be Ministers of Agriculture and who have no more idea than I have who may be Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Gallacher: It is possible that the ancient regime may be looking ahead and wish to hand over the whole business. The important thing is that not one Member who has spoken about impartiality dare challenge the Minister with being other than impartial; he dare not deny the fact that the Minister, being impartial, should also be responsible to this House and should likewise be impartial in respect of the people as a whole. There has been too much handing over of the powers of the House to groups of people outside and leaving ourselves with no right to discuss important questions that come before these particular bodies. I say, let us have the most impartial tribunal imaginable, but a tribunal responsible to the Minister and responsible to the House of Commons.

Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 112, Noes, 48.

Sloan, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)
Woodburn, A.


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Thurtle, E.
York, Major C.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Tree, A. R. L. F.



Strickland, Capt. W. F.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Mr. A. S. L. Young and


Suirdale, Viscount
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Mr. Beechman.


Sutcliffe, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)





NOES.


Albery, Sir Irving
Harvey, T. E.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Smithers, Sir W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Storey, S.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Studholme, Major H. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Fildes, Sir H.
Loftus, P. C.
Tinker, J. J.


Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Touche, G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Magnay, T.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gretton, J. F.
Petherick, M.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemaworth)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Mr. Turton and Colonel Clarke.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg formally to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members, in line 24——

Mr. Speaker: I did not select that Amendment. We have disposed of that by the Division.

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Deputy-Speaker gave a Ruling earlier that we were to have a general Debate covering all three Amendments and votes on each of them.

Mr. Speaker: It seems rather nonsensical on the Report stage, to divide the House three times on the same subject.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I did say line 24, which I thought was the Amendment you intended to call.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman said "line 21."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 24, after "call," to insert:
and to be represented if he so desires by a lawyer.
I think the Solicitor-General, in dealing with the Amendment, indicated that it was not intended to restrict the farmer to appear by himself, and it was the intention to allow him to be represented by anyone if he so desired. In those circumstances, and on the understanding that the words to provide for that will be in-

serted at some stage, I should be perfectly prepared to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am ready to accept the principle of this Amendment with the addition I indicated earlier. In my view anyone who appears before the trilbuna21 ought, if he desires, to be represented by counsel or a solicitor, a member of the National Farmers' Union or even an agent, if that were easier. The only point I would ask my hon. Friend to consider is that this could be more easily inserted in the Regulations. It is within the sphere of Regulations in dealing with the formal matters connected with the tribunal. Perhaps on that understanding my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the next two Amendments on the Order Paper fall together.

Mr. Petherick: I rise to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "made out," and to insert "sustained."
This Amendment, and my next Amendment in line 28—to leave out "not made out," and to insert, "overruled," are concerned purely with drafting. At present paragraph (e) of the Minister's Amendment reads:
Require the said tribunal to determine whether the objections are made out, and if not, on which of the grounds in respect of which they are made they are not made out. …

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but my attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. Member has spoken on the main Amendment, which has been moved by the Minister. Somebody else must move this Amendment; the hon. Member cannot do it.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "made out," and to insert "sustained."

Dr. R. Thomas: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: I find it difficult to see any objection to the words "made out." They seem simple, clear and unambiguous and are defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "to establish by evidence, argument, or investigation." I should have Thought——

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: If my right hon. Friend will look at that dictionary carefully he will probably find, after that definition, in brackets, the letters "Vulg."

Mr. Hudson: I should have thought that the words expressed what are required, namely, that the farmer being in the position of an appellant, must establish by evidence, argument or investigation his objections to the Ministry's proposal to refuse or cancel. It rather reminds me of a description by an author, which I read the other day. He talked about "equine visaged females" when what he really meant was "horse-faced women." I think this Amendment is of the same type.

Mr. Petherick: I think I should be in Order in speaking on what ought to have been my Amendment if I had not been rescued by two of my hon. Friends. I think the wording I suggest is rather better. My right hon. Friend talked about "horse-faced women," and it reminded me that on the race-course the phrases

"objection sustained" and "objection overruled" are used by the Jockey Club, who ought to know their business in these matters. I was not trying to obstruct; I put down my two Amendments because I had to read paragraph (e) two or three times before I understood it, whereas if I had read it with the word "sustained" in it instead of "made out" and "overruled" instead of "not made out" I should have understood it straight away.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to support the Amendment. The words "sustained" and "overruled" are not words to which the reference made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) could properly be applied. It seems to me that the words "made out" as they appear in the Amendment indicate this: if an accusation is made against a farmer the objection to the accusation is put by him and the onus is upon him to prove his innocence. Unless he makes out that he is innocent the charge against him is found proved. On the wording of the Minister's Amendment the onus would be upon the appellant of proving that he is not guilty, instead of it being on the other side to prove that he is guilty.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "reported," to "to," in line 32, and to insert:
by the tribunal to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and".
The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that at the end of the hearing the tribunal shall announce their decision to the applicant and to the Minister of Agriculture. We feel that it is only reasonable that the prospective dairy fanner should know on the spot what is the decision of the tribunal. There is no reason why he should be kept waiting while the decision hangs about in the Ministry. The Amendment will effect a very substantial improvement from the point of view of the applicant.

Mr. Lionel Berry: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir A. Southby: I support the Amendment. I think the dairy farmer is entitled to know what the tribunal's decision is


without tie result having been first passed through the sieve of the Ministry. We all have great respect for the present Minister, but he will not last for ever. It would be entirely wrong if what is supposed to be an impartial tribunal should have to send its finding back to the Ministry, where pressure might be brought to bear upon the tribunal to alter the terms of their finding. The farmer is entitled to know exactly the decision to which the tribunal has come.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will explain exactly why we find the express provision that the decision of the tribunal shall be reported to the Ministry of Agriculture and then communicated by the Minister to the farmer. That is, to my mind, an entirely novel procedure, and I can see no point in it unless it is intended that the Minister shall in some way "vet," filter or alter the decision of this independent and impartial tribunal. I can see no reason at all why the tribunal which is to decide whether the Minister's accusation is made out or not should not give its decision on the issue of fact straight away to the appellant at the same time that it reports to the Ministry. If this procedure is adopted it must mean that many farmers will be left with the impression that something has gone on, before they are told of the decision, which has affected the decision of the tribunal and prejudiced their case.

The Solicitor-General: There is no sinister suggestion behind the present wording and we have only one point in mind, which we thought and still think is an important point. Our wording reads that the determination of the tribunal shall be reported to the Minister and communicated by him to the person objecting. What we were worried about was the possibility of the tribunal coming to a majority decision and that fact being reported to the applicant with information as to how the tribunal was divided. We consider that that is a very bad way of dealing with it. We do not want the applicant, if the decision is against him, to go away thinking that the National Farmers' Union member was in his favour and the Milk Marketing Board and the representative of the Ministry against him. Equally, we do not want to have the feeling that, if there is a majority decision, the Ministry should know who has been

in the minority and who has been against them. We want the clear decision of the tribunal itself. Therefore we suggested that the tribunal should send on their majority determination to the Minister, who should send a copy to the applicant. I am quite prepared that that should be a certified copy, so that there could be no question of there being any alteration it. My hon. Friend knows how these things can arise. One does not want an informal decision to be given which would disclose the divergencies immediately afterwards. I hope my hon. Friend will accept it from me that it is purely that point that is in our mind and that there is no desire to keep anything back or alter it in any way.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As I understand it, the reason why the conclusion is to be communicated to the Ministry is to stop the farmer knowing who has decided in his favour and who is against him. What I do not follow is this. If the fanner is to get a certified copy of the decision, showing which way people have voted, after it has gone through the Ministry, why should he not get it direct? Further, who is going to certify? All I am asking is that the farmer should be told, not who voted, but the decision, straight away, whether the first, second and third charges are proved or not. That could be dealt with without going to the Ministry at all.

The Solicitor-General: He will get exactly that information. The tribunal will have to answer the questions and say, "Charge one is proved or not proved," and put it in writing and send it to the Ministry. In case of a divergence of opinion we did not want an extempore judgment given which would disclose that variation and might contain matter which would make the functioning of the tribunal difficult in future. But there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself as to what the applicant will get. There will only be a difference of 48 hours in the time at which he gets it.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: It is amazing to me that counsel learned in the law, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, should have argued in the way he did. He says it is very undesirable that the victim of a decision, the litigant, should know how the bench was divided. Surely, that is done in all appeal cases. One knows


who the dissenting judges are. When there is a dissenting judgment we know from the papers who has dissented, because we have reports of their speeches dissenting.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is quite correct about the Court of Appeal, but it is not the practice in the Judicial Committee or in the Court of Criminal Appeal for dissenting judgments to be given. It is a matter that differs according to the position and functions of the tribunal. I think, with regard to a tribunal of this sort, which is a judicial intervention in an administrative course of action, it would be unfortunate if either party to the litigation got to know that a certain member was in the habit of taking a certain line. I want to avoid that.

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman bases his argument this time on the fact that these are either courts martial or criminal courts. I understand that the unfortunate victim in these cases is not a criminal in the eyes of the law and that these tribunals are much more in the nature of civil courts. They are extraordinarily like the courts we heard about in Moscow during the first revolution or the sort of courts that are set up in Germany at the present day.

Sir A. Southby: I take it that these are really in the nature of appeal tribunals. When the Solicitor-General said that there will be a certified copy, I take it that it will be certified by the clerk to the tribunal, that it will merely state that the tribunal came to a certain decision, that that will be all that will be furnished to the farmer, and that it will not state that one individual voted one way or another another way.

The Solicitor-General: That is what I endeavoured to convey.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "the said Sub-section (1)," and to insert:
Sub-section (r) of the said Section twenty of the principal Act.
This is a drafting Amendment, because we have inserted so many words that to

leave in these words would be almost meaningless.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Consequential and supple mentary amendments.)

Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(3) Milk and Dairies Regulations shall provide for the constitution of a central committee, and of county committees for the several administrative counties, to keep under review the operation and administration of Milk and Dairies Regulations and Milk (Special Designation) Regulations and to make recommendations with respect thereto, in the case of the central committee, to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, in the case of a county committee, to the central committee.
It will be remembered that in the Committee discussions I said that I intended to set up committees in the various counties, as well as the Central Advisory Committee, whose job would be to keep under review the operation and administration of this Measure. I am particularly anxious to secure the co-operation of local authorities in this matter, and we think that this is the right way to do it. I was pressed on the Committee stage to insert a provision making it mandatory on me to set up these committees, and this Amendment carries out my promise. Before the Regulations governing this part of the Bill are finally drawn, we shall consult the various associations, including the associations of local authorities, and try to reach agreement with them.

Mr. Price: As we have been discussing the composition of tribunals, can the Minister say whom he proposes to appoint on these committees? They will be important advisory committees, and is it proposed to appoint local representatives of the various interests?

Mr. Hudson: I want to try to obtain the co-operation of the various local authorities, and I would sooner not specify in detail exactly how the committees will be constituted, because I shall not draft the Regulations until I have consulted the various associations. It will be within the knowledge of many Members that we have in operation a milk testing scheme, which is being run on a voluntary basis with the co-operation of the Ministry of Health, local authorities, sanitary inspectors and so forth. I want to fit this eventually into this scheme, and it will be necessary to


consult all the various authorities before we decide on the Regulations, which will in turn be submitted to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out from "products," to the end of line 44.
By the exercise of extraordinary speed we have whizzed to the Interpretation Clause, and this is an Amendment to the interpretation of "dairy farm." It says that a "dairy farm" means any farm, cow-shed or other premises, but it does not include any part of the farm or premises on which milk is manufactured into other products. That is to say, if a cheese factory were attached to the dairy farm the Bill would not apply. If the farm produces milk which forms a substantial part of the milk which is manufactured, the cheese factory comes under the Bill. I cannot see what is the object of the words which I propose to leave out:
unless the milk produced on the farm or premises forms a substantial part of the milk so manufactured.
I move the Amendment in order to get some elucidation of these words.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1942

Resolutions reported:


"I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st clay of March, 1943, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–6 and 8–16)
—


36,493,279
8
4


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 1 and 7)
37,875,574
4
7





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
591,708,473
8
9
629,584,047
13
4


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£593,090,768
5
0


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 6 and 8 to 16 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Votes 1 and 7."

I. "That the application of such Surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 964–969.]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: The object of the lay-out of the Bill is that if you have a farmer producing milk and he produces as a sideline a small amount of butter or cheese, he has only to register with the Minister and he is only inspected by one inspector. The effect of the Amendment would be that a man who produces as a side-line a small amount of cheese or butter would have to register with the Minister of Agriculture as a dairy farmer and with the local authority as a factory, and the result would be that this farm would have to be inspected by two sets of inspectors. I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend has in mind. I can assure him that the Clause was designed to secure that where the manufacture was only ancillary to the production of milk, the farmer would have to have only one inspection instead of two.

Mr. Petherick: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1943, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows:


Total Surpluses, namely:
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–15)



9,865,820
1
4


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
12,324,364
19
6





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
796,807,663
8
6
809,132,028
8
0


Net deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£799,266,208
6
8


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 15 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1."

2. "That the application of such Surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 5944; Vol. 401, c. 964–969.]


"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1943, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows:


Total Surpluses, namely:
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–11)



42,995,051
4
5


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
51,571,256
10
2





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
454,866,264
10
0
506,437,521
0
2


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£463,442,469
15
9


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to II towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1."

3. "That the application of such Surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 964–969.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Craven Arms area of the Rural District of Ludlow, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th July, be approved."—[Captain McEwen.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNITED STATES FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (DEATH SENTENCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Rhys Davies: Early this year I saw a very brief notice in our Press that a negro soldier belonging

to the United States Army had been sentenced to death by an American court-martial in this country, for an offence against a woman living in Burton-on-Trent. The woman, so far as I know, is still alive. It occurred to me a rather strange state of affairs that any person should be so sentenced on British soil for an offence that is not punishable with the extreme penalty under our own law. I pursued the matter, and asked the Home Secretary whether there was a possibility of amending the law, which we passed, giving the right to a foreign Power of exercising and administering its own legal code in this country. I received a reply from him to the effect that Parliament took the responsibility in 1940 of granting to all foreign Powers in this country the right to set up their own courts of law and employ their own legal code in this country. I hope I will say nothing in an unfriendly way about the American Gov-


ernment. That, of course, would be foolish; but I hope I can carry the House with me when I say that it appears at least incongruous that any man should be sentenced to death in this country, for an offence that is not so punishable under our own code of law.
I wrote to the American military authorities on the first case that came to my notice. Their reply was very courteous; they said that the sentence of death had been commuted to penal servitude and that the man had been sent home to America. Later on, however, there was a classical case which supports my view. It was in Bath, where a court-martial of the American Army sat and judged a negro, and actually sentenced him to death for what was called, in legal language, rape, against a married woman. I think the public of this country were a little shocked, not only at the sentence of death but at the manner in which that case was conducted before the court-martial. I want therefore to pay a tribute here and now to General Eisenhower, because after his attention was called to this case he not only commuted the sentence of death but, I understand, quashed the whole proceedings from beginning to end. That is to his credit; but I venture to submit that what General Eisenhower did supports my case further still. I am not going to blame the military authorities of America in this country for what they are doing; I rather complain against this Parliament for granting powers to foreign Governments to administer their own legal code in our country when this is at variance with our own.
Let me say something else in passing—and I shall be very delicate when I mention this. I have been to America many times and I know the negro problem there fairly well. Americans have said to me: "It is all right for you in Great Britain to be critical of our attitude towards the negroes because you have no negroes in your country", and there is much in that. I think I am right in saying however that in this country there is hardly anything in the nature of what is called colour discrimination as such. At any rate, it has never shown itself in an acute form here. I would not like to say that colour discrimination against the negro has weighed with American courts-martial in this country but it is true, I believe, that the

majority of the men who have been so sentenced to death are American negro soldiers.
There is another point on which I want to touch. Sentence of death, or capital punishment, does not apply in every one of the States of the United States, and it is quite possible, therefore, to have an American court-martial in this country sentencing to death a negro for an offence for which he would not be so sentenced in his own State in his own land. Another point to be borne in mind in this connection is that America is the only Power in this country that adopts this method. We have the Czech, Belgian, Norwegian and other Governments here, and I understand that not one of those Governments applies any of its laws in such a way as to violate our own legal code. I do not want to dwell unduly upon this subject, but I wish there were a Minister present to answer me. I understand of course why the Minister concerned is not here, but perhaps the Patronage Secretary would like to explain his absence.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): I only want to say, because I suppose the Department concerned has been warned of this Debate, that I am very sorry the Minister is not here. I suppose he is on the way.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I quite understand that. I am expecting him to come in, and in the meantime I will carry my story a little further. As stated, I asked whether it was possible to pass an amendment of the law, to preclude this sort of thing being done. I am not going to say that the military authorities of America would actually carry out the sentence of death in this country for rape, and so far as I know they have not done so in any case; but we have to remember that they have pronounced sentence of death on some of their soldiers—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office is now here—for offences that are not so punishable in our own courts of law. That is the whole of my story. I do not believe that the Government of this country will at this late stage of the war introduce amending legislation for the purpose I have in mind. I shall however make an appeal that whatever sentences are imposed by the American authorities in this country they will not


violate the sense of justice prevailing in this land by executing a man for any offence, which is not so punishable under our own laws. I think that is a fair request to make. I should imagine that the American authorities would accede to a request like that if our Government made it to them. I plead therefore that that should be done.
Finally—I do not want to continue this subject too long; it is a very delicate one—this war of course will not last for ever, and as soon as the conflict in Europe ends the problem I am raising will naturally end with it. But I do suggest once again that the public mind in this country is disturbed, when it is found that a person who happens to belong to another nationality is sentenced to death in this country for an offence which is not so punishable by our own laws. Therefore I gave notice that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I have done so. I repeat that I know the American people fairly well. I have a large number of friends there and I think a great deal of them. I think they possess some qualities that are really superb. I do not want anything therefore I have said to disturb the good relations between this country and the Americans. I appeal to them, in all they do in this country, under their own courts-martial not to offend the susceptibilities of our people, and that above all else they will not carry out sentences of death on any of their soldiers when the offence is not so punishable under our laws.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not a fact that on conviction by a United States court-martial for this offence, it is not a question of death being the maximum penalty, but that the death penalty has to be imposed?

Mr. Rhys Davies: I understand that is so, that it is the automatic penalty under American law for the offence of rape. I understand that if courts-martial sentence at all, they must do so in that way. Hence I am in a little difficulty, as I am sure the House must be, in my appeal.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I understand that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled this Debate as being in Order on the Adjournment to-day. I suggest with great respect that

in bringing a matter of this kind before the House of Commons, we are dealing with questions of a subtle and delicate character, affecting an Ally here in this country, whose presence we are proud to have and an Ally, who is taking an active, co-operative and constructive part in the present struggle for the freedom of humanity. We ought to deal with this matter with a good deal of discretion.

Mr. Davies: I have done so.

Sir P. Hannon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would deal with it in that way, but what right have we in this House of Commons to dictate to the American military authorities in this country how they are to deal with crimes committed by their Forces in this country? I understand that as soon as their military organisation was set up in this country, the United States Command became the competent authorities to deal with offences committed by their own troops. How can we intervene in matters which come under their laws, and are punishable under the laws of the United States? How can we suggest that because in one particular State capital punishment is not adopted in the United States, we ought to take that as an example in dealing with matters of this kind? I hope my right hon. Friend will have something to say, because this is a subject which should be treated with great discretion and with great reserve. We may do more harm than good in dealing with a subject of this kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not know whether the hon. Member was appealing to me. I can only rule that the matter does seem to be in Order. I entirely agree that the matter is of some delicacy, and no doubt the hon. Member will use very great discretion in the remarks he makes. But the subject is, according to the Rules of the House, in Order, on this occasion.

Sir P. Hannon: With the greatest respect, is it in Order to discuss in this House a matter of the policy adopted by a foreign Government with whom we are in alliance, in relation to their own military organisation occurring through the processes of war? Even if the House of Commons decided that intervention should take place by the Government, how could the Government intervene


without contravening the understanding already established with the United States?

Mr. Bowles: Is not the position that in October or November, 1942, this House gave the United States authority to deal with their own people, and the argument used by the Home Office was that, on certain matters, punishment would be harsher than it was in this country, which was one of the most fantastic arguments ever used by the Government?

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask whether a Member of the House of Commons is not entitled to raise an issue in this Assembly about any subject that arises within the United Kingdom? Does the hon. Gentleman argue that we are not entitled to raise issues that occur on our own soil?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I assume there is some Ministerial responsibility, in part at any rate, on some Member of the Government in this country, because the matter which the hon. Member is raising is taking place in this country. I assume that he is alleging that there is some Ministerial responsibility somewhere in relation to the affairs of an Ally in this country, and on that ground is raising the matter.

Sir P. Hannon: To what Minister on the Front Bench can a matter of this kind be addressed? I understand that we have handed over complete authority for the administration of military organisation in connection with the United States in this country, to the United States. To whom should a Question be put to remedy any grievance? It is putting the House of Commons in a most difficult position.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I remind the hon. Member that I have already put several Questions to the Home Office on this very subject, and that the Home Secretary has accepted responsibility for replying fully—and delicately too?

Sir P. Hannon: Have we not, by Act of this House, handed over to the United States authorities in this country responsibility for their own military organisation?

Mr. Bowles: Surely the hon. Member will remember the matter of the Polish soldiers who were under arrest in this country? By reverse Lend-Lease we are

making certain financial contributions from the taxpayers to the American Government. On the question of the Polish soldiers, it was then ruled that the matter was within the competence of the House to discuss on the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only rule that in so far as the hon. Member has gone, the matter would appear to be in Order, as apparently there is a residuum of responsibility on the Government of this country. I think, if I recollect aright, there is some way in which these matters are reported to the Home Office. Therefore, I think, there is some connection.

Mr. Gallachcr: On a point of Order. It seems to me that this House, by the Act which it passed, gave the American authorities extra-territorial rights in this country; and where extraterritorial rights exist, it seems to me that if anything is done, it should be done through the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I must apologise, most humbly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). Through some breakdown in the usual machinery, I was engaged, with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in receiving a deputation on another matter in which the House is very much interested, the registration of Service voters. As soon as I got the message that the Adjournment Motion was on I came here; but, unfortunately, I was too late to hear the observations of my hon. Friend. I have, however, been furnished with a note of the points he made. On the question of the jurisdiction of the House to deal with this matter, my hon. Friend has, as he pointed out, put a series of questions to the Home Secretary in regard to death sentences passed by foreign courts, most particularly by United States courts-martial, which have been accepted by the Chair, and which my right hon. Friend has answered in the House. Therefore, it would not seem to me inappropriate that the hon. Gentleman should raise this question—as he gave notice that he would do—on the Adjournment.
If I understand my hon. Friend's points correctly, he has in mind two matters. The first is, whether the United States


courts-martial in this country ought to have power to pass sentence of death on United States soldiers for offences, such as rape, for which sentence of death cannot be imposed under British law. In the second place—and perhaps he will confirm me if I am right in this, because I am not quite sure whether he raised the matter to-day—he asks, if United States courts-martial have this power, are they not using it in practice for the purpose of colour discrimination by sentencing only negroes to death for such offences?

Mr. Rhys Davies: I said, on that latter point, that there was a feeling that the race discrimination known to exist in some parts of the United States might be brought into play in this matter.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He raised the colour question in, at any rate, one or two of his Questions, and 'I felt fairly confident that he would mention it to-day. Under the Act of 1942, on which there was considerable discussion in this House, we gave to the United States authorities exclusive criminal jurisdiction over members of their Armed Forces. Therefore, United States soldiers who commit criminal offences in this country can be tried only by United States tribunals, and must be dealt with according to the law of the United States. It was made perfectly plain to Parliament during the Second Reading Debate, both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that American military law was, in some respects, more severe than our own. The Home Secretary specifically said that the penalty for rape was death or imprisonment for life. I may say that this offence is regarded more seriously in the United States than it is here; it is also regarded more seriously in France, than it is in this country. In the United States, even in peace-time, civilians can be sentenced to death for rape, under Federal criminal law. No objection was raised to that statement; and, indeed, the assurance that the United States law was in some respects stricter than our own was received by the House, at that time, with some measure of satisfaction, when fears had been expressed lest American soldiers might be dealt with too leniently by their own

courts-martial. It may be suggested that the United States Government should be asked——

Earl Winterton: I am not proposing to go over again the Debate which took place on that occasion—indeed, I think it would be out of Order to do so—but I think that my right hon. Friend has given a rather wrong impression of it. The objection that was taken was to conferring these powers at all on another Government, even a friendly Government. That was the objection taken by some of us, and there was a heated argument about it.

Mr. Peake: I agree with my Noble Friend that it would be out of Order to go once more over the points raised in the Debate, and it is true that there were misgivings expressed as to the powers conferred by the Act. It may be suggested that the United States Government should be asked to give an undertaking, in similar terms to those given in 1940 by the other Allied Governments established in this country, that sentence of death on a United States soldier shall not be carried out without the concurrence of His Majesty's Government. That was the undertaking given in 1940 by the Allied Governments in this country.

Sir P. Hannon: Including the United States?

Mr. Peake: No, they were not in this country at the time. The United States Government were not asked to give such an undertaking when the 1942 Act was passed and I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to ask them to give such an undertaking. An analogy cannot properly be drawn between the position of the United States Government, who have been given exclusive jurisdiction over their soldiers, and the position of other Governments, who have only concurrent jurisdiction and have agreed that their tribunals shall not deal with cases of manslaughter, murder, or rape. Any sentence of death passed by a United States court-martial is subject to review by a higher authority. The House may be aware of that, because of the publicity which has been given recently to the case of a soldier named Leroy Henry. It was announced only a few days ago that the Supreme Com-


mander had disapproved both the findings and the sentence of the court in that case, and the soldier has rejoined his unit. My hon. Friend is, I think, opposed to the death penalty as such.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am not raising the matter on that account.

Mr. Peake: It may be suggested that a sentence of death, passed by a United States court-martial, should not be carried out in this country. The suggestion has been made that persons so sentenced to death should be taken back to the United States for the execution of the sentence. But it was definitely thought, first, that this would not be a fair and proper thing to do as the delay between the passing of the sentence and its execution would be far too long; and, in the second place, that public opinion might not be satisfied that the sentence had, in fact, been carried out.
With regard to the second, and, I think, the more difficult, question which the hon. Gentleman raised in his supplementary questions, of coloured soldiers, my right hon. Friend answered a Question put by my hon. Friend on 20th June. My hon. Friend sought to inquire, first, how many sentences of death had been passed and how many had been carried out, and the answer was that seven death sentences had been carried out, that none of those death sentences was in respect of the crime of rape, that each was in respect of the crime of murder.
My hon. Friend sought an answer as to the numbers of coloured and white soldiers respectively who had been so sentenced, and my right hon. Friend did not think it right to give the answer to that Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] We have an absolute assurance from the United States authorities that there is no colour discrimination of any sort or kind either in their law or practice, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought fit to accept that assurance and did not think that the detailed numbers should be given in the House or discussed——

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I say I have never pursued this subject in regard to cases of murder? My point has always been in respect of sentences of death for offences not so punishable under our own law.

Sir P. Hannon: Does my hon. Friend consider that the murder of the moral character of a woman is not worthy of the same punishment as the murder of a person?

Mr. Rhys Davies: That is not the point at issue. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, if I understand his spirit, he would hang a person for rape in this country.

Sir P. Hannon: I would.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Very well, but that is not the law, and a man cannot be hanged in this country for rape.

Mr. Peake: As I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, he was satisfied by the reply he got that all sentences of death passed on United States soldiers have been in respect of the crime of murder.

Mr. Rhys Davies: That is right.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend asked how many soldiers sentenced to death and executed by the United States military authorities in this country were coloured and white respectively, and the Home Secretary gave the answer:
I am assured and I am satisfied that in This matter there is no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. In my view, no public interest would be served by publishing the information asked for by my hon. Friend, especially as the whole matter is entirely within the competence of the United States authorities; and, accordingly, I am not prepared to approach the United States Authorities on this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June; Vol. 401, c. 42.]

Mr. Barr: I apologise for intervening, but I had occasion, as convenor of the League for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, to go into this question as regards the Southern States of America. It was found that there had been, lately, a diminution of lynching in the Southern States, but there was still a very large number lynched, and the number of white men lynched was very small in proportion to the number of black men lynched.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question really arises.

Mr. Peake: I think my hon. Friend's point is really irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. I will ask the House to be content with the attitude taken by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Barr: It was the fact that my right hon. Friend said there was no difference


in practice, that brought me to my feet, but I do not wish to press the point further.

Mr. Peake: We have this assurance and, in point of fact, anybody studying this matter in the newspapers can see for himself that persons sentenced to death have by no means been all of one colour. We should be well advised to leave this matter where it rests. At the time the 1942 Act was passed, grave misgivings were expressed on all sides of the House as to what the effect of it would be. There were forebodings, for example, that British subjects would be hauled before American courts-martial as witnesses and browbeaten and so forth. We have now had two years' experience of the working of the Act, and I should like to say that there has been the closest collaboration between the United States authorities and the British authorities at all points, from the highest level, where we are in close contact with them at the Home Office, right down, through the liaison officers, to the ordinary police-constable in the districts where the American Army has been stationed. We have derived nothing but satisfaction from the collaboration we have had with the United States authorities in the working of the Act, and I honestly think that the House, being assured that the forebodings expressed in 1942 have not been in the least degree fulfilled, should leave the matter there.

Earl Winterton: I cannot allow the last remarks of the Under-Secretary to go unanswered. As one of those who introduced this subject at the time of the passing of the Act, I want to make it

clear, speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends who opposed the Bill, that our objections were quite different. We said that it was in the interest neither of a great and friendly country—the United States—nor of ourselves, that, for the first time in British history, an Allied country should be given complete rights of this kind in this country, unless reciprocal treatment were accorded to us in the United States. That has not been accorded, but I hope, on behalf of my hon. Friends in all parts of the House who made the original objection, that this great and friendly Government, whose nationals are fighting so gallantly by our side in Normandy, will see that there is feeling on this matter in this country and will no longer wish to have the Act continued.

Mr. Bowles: The Under-Secretary, on the question of sentences of death for murder, said that his right hon. Friend was satisfied, in this matter, that there was no discrimination between black soldiers and white, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) raised a case which is not one of murder at all. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the view that there is no racial discrimination or colour bar in the United States, and even between one State and another, so far as the question of rape is concerned.

Mr. Peake: I can give my hon. Friend an answer in one sentence. The assurance we received covers both types of cases.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.